Sexual Assault or Implied Consent? St Louis jury says ... - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-24-2010, 09:41 PM   #1
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 63,730
Local Time: 10:56 AM
Sexual Assault or Implied Consent? St Louis jury says ...

Mo. woman loses lawsuit over 'Girls Gone Wild’ video

A jury on Thursday rejected a young woman's claim that the producers of a "Girls Gone Wild" video damaged her reputation by showing her tank top being pulled down by another person in a Laclede's Landing bar.

A St. Louis Circuit Court jury deliberated 90 minutes before ruling against the woman, 26, on the third day of the trial. Lawyers on both sides argued the key issue was consent, with her side saying she absolutely refused to give it and the defense claiming she silently approved by taking part in the party.


Appalling. Appalling, appalling, appalling.

Hey, ladies, guess what? If you're dancing sexily, especially in front of a camera, you're asking to have your breasts exposed against your will! Doesn't matter if you say no. You know you want it, or else you wouldn't have gone there!

I'd say she consented to be on film dancing. She did not consent to have her breasts exposed and immortalized on film for Girls Gone Wild.

I'm disgusted by this jury.
__________________

__________________
corianderstem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2010, 10:13 PM   #2
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Pearl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,653
Local Time: 02:56 PM
So am I, cori.

It seems that our society still believes that if a woman was assaulted or harassed, she was asking for it. It's as if our society still has hang-ups over women's sexuality and women celebrating it. Meaning, "Oh no! She enjoys being sexual. Let's punish her!"
__________________

__________________
Pearl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2010, 10:15 PM   #3
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 07:56 PM
Would tend to agree, Cori. It seems to cross the line as regards consent, so it's a troubling decision in that sense.

Technology. Hmmm.
__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2010, 10:18 PM   #4
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 63,730
Local Time: 10:56 AM
It doesn't say in the story (unless I missed it), but I'm assuming there were signs posted at the club that by entering, they consent to be filmed, as it was advertised as a GGW party.

However, I'd put good money on the guess that the signs didn't say you consent to have your breasts exposed against your will and put on film.
__________________
corianderstem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2010, 10:22 PM   #5
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 01:56 PM
Perhaps then her case is against the person who pulled her shirt down and not the producers?
__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2010, 10:23 PM   #6
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 63,730
Local Time: 10:56 AM
You mean as a next step? Or that it should have been against him (or her, I think it was another woman who did it, if I read correctly) to begin with?

I think she went after GGW because they were the ones profiting off it.
__________________
corianderstem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2010, 10:31 PM   #7
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 01:56 PM
I mean in the beginning, but perhaps now as a next step. I dont think she consented with getting her shirt pulled down so much as 'you will be taped, we own the footage'. Not saying its a morally correct decision to put that footage on a DVD, but it would seem GGW would be in the clear. Why not go after the person that actually performed the assault though?
__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2010, 10:33 PM   #8
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 63,730
Local Time: 10:56 AM
I dunno ... maybe they couldn't/can't identify that person? I do have a problem with that, though. GGW might own the footage, but if they're supposed to be getting actual consent in the guise of signed forms to have their breasts on film (which I believe has led to previous lawsuits and/or accusations against GGW), I'd say she was right to go after them, as she's clearly seen as saying "no" to showing her breasts earlier in the tape.

I'd start with GGW, though, just because Joe Francis is a gigantic asshole douchebag who needs as much shit thrown at him as possible.
__________________
corianderstem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2010, 10:38 PM   #9
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 01:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corianderstem View Post
I dunno ... maybe they couldn't/can't identify that person?

I'd start with GGW, though, just because Joe Francis is a gigantic asshole douchebag who needs as much shit thrown at him as possible.
Well, I'd agree that he's a huge sleazebag, but I think maybe this woman made a mistake in going after them in the first place. I know this is going to come off the wrong way, but I'd assume at least part of her decision had to do with GGW having a shit load of money. Seems like the most sensible approach would be to go after the perpetrator of the crime.

And on a side note, I think the best way to avoid damaging your reputation would be to not take part in a GGW filming at all
(That in no way is meant to be a 'well, she was there, she deserved it' statement)

I'm heading out to the bar now and hopefully will not have my nipples exposed by a third party .....possibly first party
__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2010, 10:41 PM   #10
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 63,730
Local Time: 10:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jive Turkey View Post
I'd assume at least part of her decision had to do with GGW having a shit load of money.
Honestly, in this case, I don't really see anything wrong with that. Usually I'm against the notion of the "lawsuit-happy" America, but if someone was making money off of my breasts being exposed on DVD, and I didn't consent to that, you're damned right I'd go after justice in the hopes that I could have monetary compensation for my humiliation.



Oh, also, I don't think it was in this article, but I saw a comment elsewhere (cannot verify it, however) that the woman worked at the club, which would negate your statement about "just don't go." Again, I only saw that as a comment somewhere.
__________________
corianderstem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2010, 11:01 PM   #11
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 07:56 PM
Logically, though, I would argue that at some indeterminate point in the future, it is probable that almost everyone will have their bits exposed on the internet sooner or later. That seems to be the way the technology seems to be trending. What was viewed as perverted, decadent, immoral 20 years ago is now just normal. We're just a higher form of animal, basically.
__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2010, 11:05 PM   #12
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 63,730
Local Time: 10:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
What was viewed as perverted, decadent, immoral 20 years ago is now just normal.
Not sure how to address the idea that we're all going to be nekkid on the internet one day, but re the above - I would state emphatically that "normal" still needs to include the person's consent.

The definitions of perverted, decadent and immoral have indeed changed, and I don't necessarily think there's anything wrong with that, but only when those things involve the consent of all parties.

Things occuring without the consent of all parties should remain flat-out wrong.
__________________
corianderstem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2010, 11:08 PM   #13
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 01:56 PM
Are you serious? I don't intend to allow my "bits" to be on the Internet or to ever feel that it is "normal" to do so...
__________________
Liesje is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2010, 11:17 PM   #14
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 04:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
Logically, though, I would argue that at some indeterminate point in the future, it is probable that almost everyone will have their bits exposed on the internet sooner or later. That seems to be the way the technology seems to be trending. What was viewed as perverted, decadent, immoral 20 years ago is now just normal. We're just a higher form of animal, basically.
I'd agree generally but I don't think we can justifiably say higher or lower when it comes to life.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2010, 11:27 PM   #15
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 07:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corianderstem View Post
Not sure how to address the idea that we're all going to be nekkid on the internet one day, but re the above - I would state emphatically that "normal" still needs to include the person's consent.

The definitions of perverted, decadent and immoral have indeed changed, and I don't necessarily think there's anything wrong with that, but only when those things involve the consent of all parties.

Things occuring without the consent of all parties should remain flat-out wrong.
Of course. But, we're still in the post-Christian guilt phase, for want of a better expression. If we look at, say, the Amish communities: 200 years ago, their way of life was the norm: now, it's viewed as backward, puritanical, and plain odd. Now, we have celebrities posting their sex-tapes on the internet as a career move (or so I've heard) and most of them (in my opinion, rightly) give no impression of being remotely ashamed. It's like "Oops, here's some footage of me shagging my girlfriend or boyfriend, it seems to be on the internet for some odd reason, but anyway, I had fun, some other folk got their rocks off watching me get my rocks off, and big deal. It was a good career move, I got my name in the papers, and all publicity is good publicity, as they say."

So, is shame regarding sex and sexuality basically an out-dated Judeo-Christian concept, and, if so, with technology, whither the concept?

Now, I could be wrong; our ancestors may swing the other way and turn out to be the most god-fearing puritans in history - but that would of necessity have to involve some form of globalist control legislation, which, if it happens, in my view is something to be feared. More so, perhaps, than a girl getting caught out on a GGW tape getting her tits out.
__________________

__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com