She Knew What She Was Doing --- Really?

GreNME · 26th July 2010, 06:47 AM

http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet...ill/index.html

Careful with the link, it has some NSFW content (not R rated, but definitely PG-13).

So as the article tells the story, this girl was out for spring break at a club, and was dancing in front of a cameraman for the infamous Girls Gone Wild video series. She seemed to enjoy dancing in front of a camera, so the cameraman asks her to show her breasts. She declines. Apparently someone grabs the girl's top and pulls it down, exposing her breasts to the camera. The footage goes into the GGW video, but the girl (now married) takes years to find out from a friend of her husband or something like that. Since she didn't give consent, she goes to court against the makers of the GGW videos.

She lost. Not only did she lose, but apparently this is a quote from the foreman of the jury: "Through her actions, she gave implied consent. She was really playing to the camera. She knew what she was doing."

Now, I would completely understand objecting to this woman's demand for $5 million in compensation-- I seriously doubt her breasts or her pride are worth that much-- but saying that she gave implied consent to have her boobs exposed simply because she was dancing in front of the camera? That just seems unfathomably ridiculous and at least slightly misogynist. I agree with the author that it's somewhat of a "she was asking for it" justification for ruling against her instead of what I would have considered a more rational ruling of a lower award that the $5 million she demanded. I can't wrap my head around how any court would allow an implied consent justification to fly with something like this, considering implied consent isn't a justification for sexual harassment or assault.

But since I know there are legal types here, I was wondering if perhaps there is some other explanation that would seem more rational where implied consent under the circumstances explained makes sense. I didn't find anything in the article linked by the author of anything left out that would change this from being a ruling akin to "she was asking for it."

Also, I'd note that my opinion on this isn't because the GGW folks are producing porn. The porn industry is what it is, and as far as I know there are great lengths gone to in order to make sure that those taking part are aware of what they're doing, so I'm not making any kind of moral judgment based on content. My objection is to where it's assumed that dancing in front of a camera is somehow implied consent to having one's breasts exposed against their wishes.

Harpo · 26th July 2010, 07:14 AM

It's difficult to make an informed, evidence-based decision without seeing the breasts in question.

fuelair · 26th July 2010, 07:18 AM

Is there any evidence that she protested at the time/grabbed the other persons hand, covered up immediately, yelled at them not to use the footage?

TragicMonkey · 26th July 2010, 07:24 AM

Didn't she have to sign a release before they could publish footage of her, topless or not? I thought that was a legal requirement, unless they blur your face.

ponderingturtle · 26th July 2010, 07:28 AM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Didn't she have to sign a release before they could publish footage of her, topless or not? I thought that was a legal requirement, unless they blur your face.

I think it depends on local laws. You could argue that GGW is a documentary, and as such would not need explicit consent to show such footage filmed in public. This of course varies by local law.

bokonon · 26th July 2010, 07:30 AM

I'm not a lawyer, but as a photographer, I thought release forms were required as well. They're using her face (et al) for commercial gain.

Maybe it's only reputable publishers that require release forms, however; GGW may not care. I'm surprised they went to court rather than settling (for much less than $5 mil), and I hope the girl appeals (rim shot).

Darat · 26th July 2010, 07:31 AM

Originally Posted by fuelair

Is there any evidence that she protested at the time/grabbed the other persons hand, covered up immediately, yelled at them not to use the footage?

That's what I would have expected or that she tried to run away, something to show that she was against the filming.

I would have thought the court would have also considered what behaviour she could have reasonably expected to happen at such an event and if having your boobs exposed is pretty much the norm then again can't see on what grounds she would be able to object to the footage. Outside of a few areas courts do consider what a reasonable person could expect to happen as a guide to what you can reasonably complain about.

I wouldn't have thought (in the UK at least) that you could claim that having your top pulled up is even common assault.

Finally do the participants in these events not have to sign a release?

fuelair · 26th July 2010, 07:40 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

That's what I would have expected or that she tried to run away, something to show that she was against the filming.

I would have thought the court would have also considered what behaviour she could have reasonably expected to happen at such an event and if having your boobs exposed is pretty much the norm then again can't see on what grounds she would be able to object to the footage. Outside of a few areas courts do consider what a reasonable person could expect to happen as a guide to what you can reasonably complain about.

I wouldn't have thought (in the UK at least) that you could claim that having your top pulled up is even common assault.

Finally do the participants in these events not have to sign a release?

If the event were specifically a private event sponsored by GGW then almost certainly they would - however, GGW normally simply has videographers in the crowds in public at Spring Break locations, Mardi Gras, Lake Havasu and the other places known for high levels of nudity in public. Since these are public, the rules on permission do not really apply. (I am not a lawyer, but unless they video an under 18 and use the footage they should be fine.)

Darat · 26th July 2010, 07:46 AM

Thanks I was thinking that the bar was set up as a venue for the filming, you know the sort of thing you sometimes see e.g. "There will be video recording here tonight".

The only person I can see that she would have anything like a complaint against (from the article) is whoever pulled up her top, but then like I said I can't even see how that could even be considered common assault as the incident has been described.

Is there a clip anywhere that we can see what they did record?

Dimitri · 26th July 2010, 07:51 AM

To be honest, she indeed really had it comming.
It is a disserved treatment by the judges for not giving in to the charge. If a person wants to behave in the way she did, then that person must deal with the possible consequences of her behaviour.

Another question which arises would be "did she got a bad experience during the 6 years of not being aware"? With only this article/information at hand I even doubt she was being finger-pointed by anyone.

Darat · 26th July 2010, 07:57 AM

Originally Posted by GreNME

...snip... I can't wrap my head around how any court would allow an implied consent justification to fly with something like this, considering implied consent isn't a justification for sexual harassment or assault.

...snip...

But is there any evidence that either sexual harassment or assault occurred? From the article I think it is very difficult to argue that having your top lifted is an assault.

Kevin_Lowe · 26th July 2010, 08:04 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

But is there any evidence that either sexual harassment or assault occurred? From the article I think it is very difficult to argue that having your top lifted is an assault.

In Australia any kind of threatening behaviour counts as assault, you don't even need to make physical contact. Lifting someone's top definitely would count. In theory you could get three years but I can't imagine a custodial sentence for something like this case.

MG1962 · 26th July 2010, 08:06 AM

This is an absolute outrage - I think the next TAM should in the form of a protest against this kind of exploitation. We need to use TAM as a fact finding misson to see whats really happening at these spring breaks

Darat · 26th July 2010, 08:09 AM

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

In Australia any kind of threatening behaviour counts as assault, you don't even need to make physical contact. Lifting someone's top definitely would count. In theory you could get three years but I can't imagine a custodial sentence for something like this case.

The law sounds similar to the UK but where is the threat even of violence or danger or apprehension of violence to the girl in this incident?

KingMerv00 · 26th July 2010, 08:15 AM

Originally Posted by GreNME

I can't wrap my head around how any court would allow an implied consent justification to fly with something like this, considering implied consent isn't a justification for sexual harassment or assault.

The best way to wrap your head around un-head-wrap-roundable legal outcomes is to read the court's opinion. Anyone have it on file?

BTW, you can consent to assault and battery. What do you think a boxing match is? Sexual assault too. See rule 34.

ponderingturtle · 26th July 2010, 08:45 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

Thanks I was thinking that the bar was set up as a venue for the filming, you know the sort of thing you sometimes see e.g. "There will be video recording here tonight".

The only person I can see that she would have anything like a complaint against (from the article) is whoever pulled up her top, but then like I said I can't even see how that could even be considered common assault as the incident has been described.

She probably had a good assault complaint against the person who pulled her top

Quote:

Is there a clip anywhere that we can see what they did record?

Preferably the full video not just the part that got into the published video.

ponderingturtle · 26th July 2010, 08:47 AM

Originally Posted by Dimitri

To be honest, she indeed really had it comming.
It is a disserved treatment by the judges for not giving in to the charge. If a person wants to behave in the way she did, then that person must deal with the possible consequences of her behaviour.

Dancing now rates one to be sexually assaulted and have documentation of that event sold for a profit?

Cainkane1 · 26th July 2010, 08:48 AM

Originally Posted by GreNME

http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet...ill/index.html

Careful with the link, it has some NSFW content (not R rated, but definitely PG-13).

So as the article tells the story, this girl was out for spring break at a club, and was dancing in front of a cameraman for the infamous Girls Gone Wild video series. She seemed to enjoy dancing in front of a camera, so the cameraman asks her to show her breasts. She declines. Apparently someone grabs the girl's top and pulls it down, exposing her breasts to the camera. The footage goes into the GGW video, but the girl (now married) takes years to find out from a friend of her husband or something like that. Since she didn't give consent, she goes to court against the makers of the GGW videos.

She lost. Not only did she lose, but apparently this is a quote from the foreman of the jury: "Through her actions, she gave implied consent. She was really playing to the camera. She knew what she was doing."

Now, I would completely understand objecting to this woman's demand for $5 million in compensation-- I seriously doubt her breasts or her pride are worth that much-- but saying that she gave implied consent to have her boobs exposed simply because she was dancing in front of the camera? That just seems unfathomably ridiculous and at least slightly misogynist. I agree with the author that it's somewhat of a "she was asking for it" justification for ruling against her instead of what I would have considered a more rational ruling of a lower award that the $5 million she demanded. I can't wrap my head around how any court would allow an implied consent justification to fly with something like this, considering implied consent isn't a justification for sexual harassment or assault.

But since I know there are legal types here, I was wondering if perhaps there is some other explanation that would seem more rational where implied consent under the circumstances explained makes sense. I didn't find anything in the article linked by the author of anything left out that would change this from being a ruling akin to "she was asking for it."

Also, I'd note that my opinion on this isn't because the GGW folks are producing porn. The porn industry is what it is, and as far as I know there are great lengths gone to in order to make sure that those taking part are aware of what they're doing, so I'm not making any kind of moral judgment based on content. My objection is to where it's assumed that dancing in front of a camera is somehow implied consent to having one's breasts exposed against their wishes.

She didn't deserve $5000000.00 but she did deserve to be compensated in some way say $5000.00 dollars. I think she waited too long. If she felt she had been violated she should have tried to find a police officer.

My cousin was sexually assaulted by her manager and she sued him for $1000,00.00 and was awarded $250,000.00. In her case he put his hand on her private area and when she tried to shove his hand away he put her hand down his pants. She won because she took swift legal action and the jury was impressed by her testimony.

ponderingturtle · 26th July 2010, 08:52 AM

Originally Posted by Cainkane1

She didn't deserve $5000000.00 but she did deserve to be compensated in some way say $5000.00 dollars. I think she waited too long. If she felt she had been violated she should have tried to find a police officer.

The thing is GGW is a big business, as such $5000 would not be much of an effect to get them to make sure they have consent of those they film flashing.

The problem here is that she could have taken swift action against the person who pulled on her top, but swift action against GGW is not so easy, because they had to publish the video first.

bokonon · 26th July 2010, 08:52 AM

I think she regards the sale of the video as the violation, not the fact that her top was pulled up (probably by a friend of hers). Since she was not aware of the violation, I think the fact that she didn't take immediate action is understandable.

Cavemonster · 26th July 2010, 09:03 AM

Without seeing the video, it's hard to tell, but I can easily imagine a sequence of events that fits the description where consent can be implied.

1) Woman begins dancing in front of camera
2) Cameraman explains that they are filming for GGW and asks her to expose her breasts
3) Someone pulls down her shirt, exposing her breasts.
4) Woman laughs and continues dancing seductively for camera

#4 isn't stated explicitly in the article, but her reaction after her breasts were exposed is key. If, knowing that they were filming for GGW, knowing they just filmed her nudity, she continued to dance for the camera and did not address the nudity in a negative way, then, yes, consent can clearly be implied.

SOdhner · 26th July 2010, 09:10 AM

My understanding (second hand but from a reliable source) is that she did protest at the time, and that it is audible on film (I'm not clear if it's audible in the finished film or the original.) This is a clear-cut case from everything I've heard and I can't imagine how the case went this way. It's shameful and disturbing.

As for the amount, if anything I think she asked for too little. The amount should be such that GGW is either terrified to ever let something like this happen again, or is unable to due to bankruptcy.

Cainkane1 · 26th July 2010, 09:16 AM

Originally Posted by SOdhner

My understanding (second hand but from a reliable source) is that she did protest at the time, and that it is audible on film (I'm not clear if it's audible in the finished film or the original.) This is a clear-cut case from everything I've heard and I can't imagine how the case went this way. It's shameful and disturbing.

As for the amount, if anything I think she asked for too little. The amount should be such that GGW is either terrified to ever let something like this happen again, or is unable to due to bankruptcy.

The woman did deserve a substantial amount of money. The person who pulled her top down should be prosecuted. The jury foreman is an ass. If a woman says no then its no. Maybe she can sue again.

ponderingturtle · 26th July 2010, 09:21 AM

Originally Posted by Cainkane1

The woman did deserve a substantial amount of money. The person who pulled her top down should be prosecuted. The jury foreman is an ass. If a woman says no then its no. Maybe she can sue again.

Again I am not sure the law is on her side here. Given that they did not cause the other person to pull her top down/up, they only caught it on film and sold it.

I think they probably should need a release for this, but if they were hitting a more documentary note and less of a porn note I am not sure they should.

For example if it had been a video of a fight, and someone was selling "greatest bar fight caught on film" video would they need consent from both sides of the fight or not?

It is a messy situation. I think they should have not shown it, but I am not sure that I would be fully comfortable with a law that meant they could not show it either.

SOdhner · 26th July 2010, 09:53 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

I think they probably should need a release for this, but if they were hitting a more documentary note and less of a porn note I am not sure they should.

That's a good point - clearly I feel it is morally wrong but there is the chance that it is not legally wrong. I'd be sad if that were the case but I don't know the specific guidelines so... hmm.

ETA: Obviously the GGW are porn and not a documentary for any real purposes, again it's just the legal question.

The Fallen Serpent · 26th July 2010, 09:57 AM

Unfortunately the linked article is missing very important information about the case. A lack of consent forms does not immediately show them to be in the wrong legally. Out of curiosity and general enjoyment of half naked women I almost went to a GGW event at a bar with friends. One issue we noted was that the bar had a sign posted stating that all activity in the bar was subject to filming by the crew, consent to filming forms were not being issued to those who entered. Consent forms may have been issued to women who spent time in front of the cameras. This case may or may not be a similar situation. Local privacy laws are very important in this sort of case. Regardless, from the story as presented placing the woman in the videos does sound sleazy. Sleazy and illegal are not always the same thing. According tot he article the lawsuit was over damaging her reputation. That is a tricky claim against something that happened in a public venue as opposed to a private venue. Bars are generally open to the public rather than private members only clubs (see Utah). She may have had a stronger claim if she had treated the action of having her breasts exposed by another as criminal activity, as some laws becoming trickier with regards to filmed criminal activity. Even protesting the film after the occurance may not be enough.

I also agree that her actions after the exposure may very well imply consent. It would be more helpful if someone had a link to the court findings as the media articles I can find are very one sided and lacking in crucial details.

GreNME · 26th July 2010, 10:06 AM

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

The best way to wrap your head around un-head-wrap-roundable legal outcomes is to read the court's opinion. Anyone have it on file?

Not that I know of. Would it be on Findlaw yet if were even going to show up there? Are there databases of court cases to review?

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

BTW, you can consent to assault and battery. What do you think a boxing match is? Sexual assault too. See rule 34.

Right, but in this case both articles I've linked to mention specifically that there wasn't a consent for and allegedly the girl could be heard saying no to requests to remove her top on-camera. If there is actually footage of her saying "no" then it seems to reason that she didn't consent.

Dunstan · 26th July 2010, 10:15 AM

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

The best way to wrap your head around un-head-wrap-roundable legal outcomes is to read the court's opinion. Anyone have it on file?

It was a jury verdict, not a decision by the judge. At most there might have been a special verdict form with some yes/no questions answered by the jury, i.e. "Did the plaintiff consent?"

There may end up being an opinion by a judge in post-trial motions and/or on appeal, but those aren't likely to tell you much about the jury's reasoning. At best you'll get a judge's explanation of how the evidence was (or was not) sufficient that a reasonable jury could have reached such a conclusion.

GreNME · 26th July 2010, 10:16 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

But is there any evidence that either sexual harassment or assault occurred? From the article I think it is very difficult to argue that having your top lifted is an assault.

Sexual assault. The phrase "sexual harassment or assault" is perhaps not parsing correctly-- harassment or assault that is sexual in nature. And to that, both having your top pulled down unwanted and a stranger filming then selling it could be construed as sexual assault or sexual harassment, depending on how strongly one wished to press the charges.

-----

Originally Posted by Dimitri

To be honest, she indeed really had it comming.
It is a disserved treatment by the judges for not giving in to the charge. If a person wants to behave in the way she did, then that person must deal with the possible consequences of her behaviour.

Rapists all over would love this to be the common attitude in courtrooms-- then all they have to do is hang out where women are behaving in ways where they're "asking for it." Short skirt? Asking for it. Waving her hips at you suggestively? Totally asking for it. Wearing a thong bikini to the beach? Heck, that's begging for it, amirite?

What a ridiculous pretense of logic.

GreNME · 26th July 2010, 10:20 AM

Originally Posted by Dunstan

It was a jury verdict, not a decision by the judge. At most there might have been a special verdict form with some yes/no questions answered by the jury, i.e. "Did the plaintiff consent?"

There may end up being an opinion by a judge in post-trial motions and/or on appeal, but those aren't likely to tell you much about the jury's reasoning. At best you'll get a judge's explanation of how the evidence was (or was not) sufficient that a reasonable jury could have reached such a conclusion.

Yeah, but the jury not only seemed to be commenting on whether evidence was sufficient, they made a positive statement regarding her behavior and implied consent. The quote both articles I linked attribute to the jury foreman is the following:

"Through her actions, she gave implied consent. She was really playing to the camera. She knew what she was doing."

If the video really does have her saying no and the jury is saying that doing so is superceded by "her actions," then I have to say I find that jury decision appalling.

The Fallen Serpent · 26th July 2010, 10:35 AM

SOdhner claimed she protested when it happened. Neither the OP article nor the article linked through it make that claim. It is possible her actions did imply consent after her top was pulled up. This is the problem with taking a single comment by the jury possibly out of context to other comments and the evidence. Despite saying no multiple times to the request to remove her top, if she conintued dancing for the camera once it happened that could be taken as implied consent. It is really dependant on her reaction.

The situation as presented I find the jury's comment disgusting, but I suspect we do not have the full story.

Darat · 26th July 2010, 10:45 AM

Originally Posted by GreNME

...snip...

If the video really does have her saying no and the jury is saying that doing so is superceded by "her actions," then I have to say I find that jury decision appalling.

I don't understand this - it's pretty much established that if you can reasonable have expected something to happen (we are not talking about a criminal act) then you are implying consent.

As an example - I go on a ghost train ride, a ghost pops-out and I jump and wet myself; I would not be able to make a claim for that because my consent to be scared is implied because it is reasonable to expect to be scared on a ghost train. The same if I went on a fast whirling ride and I spewed-up all over myself, again the same principle applies.

This type of judgement has nothing to do with a defence against a prosecution for rape "she was asking for it"- I can't understand why you are even mentioning that in relation to this incident, this is a civil case that has nothing to do with assault, sexual or otherwise.

SOdhner · 26th July 2010, 10:47 AM

Originally Posted by The Fallen Serpent

SOdhner claimed she protested when it happened. Neither the OP article nor the article linked through it make that claim.

Yeah, I can't get to where I saved the source right now and can't remember which one it was (I read too many stories at too many places to keep them straight) so I'll have to find it later and share. I wouldn't want to spread too much "my friend's brother's barber said..." around.

GreNME · 26th July 2010, 10:51 AM

Originally Posted by The Fallen Serpent

SOdhner claimed she protested when it happened. Neither the OP article nor the article linked through it make that claim.

Second link I gave in the OP: "Stephen Evans of St. Louis, her lawyer, argued Thursday that Doe never gave consent — and even could be heard in original footage saying "no" when asked to show her breasts shortly before another woman suddenly pulled Doe's top down."

If this footage exists, then the question of consent seems cut and dry to me.

Originally Posted by The Fallen Serpent

It is possible her actions did imply consent after her top was pulled up. This is the problem with taking a single comment by the jury possibly out of context to other comments and the evidence. Despite saying no multiple times to the request to remove her top, if she conintued dancing for the camera once it happened that could be taken as implied consent. It is really dependant on her reaction.

The situation as presented I find the jury's comment disgusting, but I suspect we do not have the full story.

How do you get "she knew what she was doing" and "implied consent" taken out of context with something like this? If the girl said no and there's footage of her doing so, then consent was not given. It wouldn't matter if she was giggling, making kissy-faces, or shaking her butt at the camera while she did it, her saying "no" puts consent to showing her boobs in the negative.

Darat · 26th July 2010, 10:51 AM

Originally Posted by The Fallen Serpent

SOdhner claimed she protested when it happened. Neither the OP article nor the article linked through it make that claim. It is possible her actions did imply consent after her top was pulled up. This is the problem with taking a single comment by the jury possibly out of context to other comments and the evidence. Despite saying no multiple times to the request to remove her top, if she conintued dancing for the camera once it happened that could be taken as implied consent. It is really dependant on her reaction.

The situation as presented I find the jury's comment disgusting, but I suspect we do not have the full story.

That's why I was wondering if there is a clip of what was in the video. From what has been reported it doesn't make sense - if she had her top pulled down and she didn't want to carry on dancing or showing her boobs she could have simply put her arm over her chest and walked away from the videoing, I would have thought that would have been uninteresting given how people have described the videos that this company produces. It would appear however that they have longer footage than say a second or two before she covered herself and walked away. Changing your mind after you have done something is not the same as not consenting to it.

GreNME · 26th July 2010, 10:56 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

I don't understand this - it's pretty much established that if you can reasonable have expected something to happen (we are not talking about a criminal act) then you are implying consent.

As an example - I go on a ghost train ride, a ghost pops-out and I jump and wet myself; I would not be able to make a claim for that because my consent to be scared is implied because it is reasonable to expect to be scared on a ghost train. The same if I went on a fast whirling ride and I spewed-up all over myself, again the same principle applies.

Your comparison doesn't work because she allegedly declined requests to expose her breasts, making the act of exposure against her will. I don't see how there would be a reasonable expectation that someone is going to remove your clothes against your will when you go out someplace, regardless of whether the club is currently allowing a porn company to shoot video there.

Originally Posted by Darat

This type of judgement has nothing to do with a defence against a prosecution for rape "she was asking for it"- I can't understand why you are even mentioning that in relation to this incident, this is a civil case that has nothing to do with assault, sexual or otherwise.

If the jury had agreed that she didn't consent, there would have been cause for criminal charges against the company who sold the video in most states I'm aware of.

Darat · 26th July 2010, 11:00 AM

Originally Posted by GreNME

Second link I gave in the OP: "Stephen Evans of St. Louis, her lawyer, argued Thursday that Doe never gave consent — and even could be heard in original footage saying "no" when asked to show her breasts shortly before another woman suddenly pulled Doe's top down."

If this footage exists, then the question of consent seems cut and dry to me.

...snip...

It's hard from the sparse information in the articles to be sure but to me it reads that she was suing because they included her at all in the video, not just because her top was pulled down and they videoed that and used it.

Her lawyer says:

"She is entitled to go out with friends and have a good time and not have her top pulled down and get that in a video.""

The problem with that statement is that it is trying to conflate two separate things - her being filmed and someone pulling down her top.

The two things are separate (unless the claim was that the person who pulled down her top was working for the video company?). If they had permission to video in the bar and she knew that they were videoing (as the article seems to imply) then I can't see how it can be said that she didn't consent to being videoed.

The fact that someone also pulled down her top is a matter she should pursue with whoever pulled her top down, which does not seem to have been anyone connected with the video company.

ETA: Let me give an another example which excludes the boobs, it would be no different if she had been dancing in front of the camera and fell over, "arse over tits" as we would say in the UK, displaying her knickers to the world would you say that the video company could not feature that in their video of the event?

KingMerv00 · 26th July 2010, 11:00 AM

Originally Posted by Dunstan

It was a jury verdict, not a decision by the judge. At most there might have been a special verdict form with some yes/no questions answered by the jury, i.e. "Did the plaintiff consent?"

There may end up being an opinion by a judge in post-trial motions and/or on appeal, but those aren't likely to tell you much about the jury's reasoning. At best you'll get a judge's explanation of how the evidence was (or was not) sufficient that a reasonable jury could have reached such a conclusion.

Sorry, poor choice of words. I meant some other form of court documentation. (ie a transcript)

KingMerv00 · 26th July 2010, 11:03 AM

I don't think there is enough information on either side to make a determination. We'd need to gather all of the facts and arguments first. We don't have them so any kind of certainty is just an illusion.

"No" does mean "no" but in what context? How much time elapsed? Was she convinced? Did she sign a waiver after the fact? Was she drunk before, during, or after? How did she react immediately after?

A million questions to ask and no good answers.

Darat · 26th July 2010, 11:06 AM

Originally Posted by GreNME

Your comparison doesn't work because she allegedly declined requests to expose her breasts, making the act of exposure against her will. I don't see how there would be a reasonable expectation that someone is going to remove your clothes against your will when you go out someplace, regardless of whether the club is currently allowing a porn company to shoot video there.

..snip...

I agree that is not reasonable however the video company had nothing to do with that - if she has a complaint about that she needs to pursue the person responsible i.e. whoever pulled down her top.

Originally Posted by GreNME

If the jury had agreed that she didn't consent, there would have been cause for criminal charges against the company who sold the video in most states I'm aware of.

I don't understand that - a civil action would then mean criminal action would be taken? I've heard of the other way around but not that way around. But that is pretty much beside the point since we are apparently discussing a civil matter or am I wrong about that point and it was a criminal trial?

26th July 2010, 06:47 AM	#1
GreNME Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Folsom Prison Posts: 8,283	She Knew What She Was Doing --- Really? http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet...ill/index.html Careful with the link, it has some NSFW content (not R rated, but definitely PG-13). So as the article tells the story, this girl was out for spring break at a club, and was dancing in front of a cameraman for the infamous Girls Gone Wild video series. She seemed to enjoy dancing in front of a camera, so the cameraman asks her to show her breasts. She declines. Apparently someone grabs the girl's top and pulls it down, exposing her breasts to the camera. The footage goes into the GGW video, but the girl (now married) takes years to find out from a friend of her husband or something like that. Since she didn't give consent, she goes to court against the makers of the GGW videos. She lost. Not only did she lose, but apparently this is a quote from the foreman of the jury: "Through her actions, she gave implied consent. She was really playing to the camera. She knew what she was doing." Now, I would completely understand objecting to this woman's demand for $5 million in compensation-- I seriously doubt her breasts or her pride are worth that much-- but saying that she gave implied consent to have her boobs exposed simply because she was dancing in front of the camera? That just seems unfathomably ridiculous and at least slightly misogynist. I agree with the author that it's somewhat of a "she was asking for it" justification for ruling against her instead of what I would have considered a more rational ruling of a lower award that the $5 million she demanded. I can't wrap my head around how any court would allow an implied consent justification to fly with something like this, considering implied consent isn't a justification for sexual harassment or assault. But since I know there are legal types here, I was wondering if perhaps there is some other explanation that would seem more rational where implied consent under the circumstances explained makes sense. I didn't find anything in the article linked by the author of anything left out that would change this from being a ruling akin to "she was asking for it." Also, I'd note that my opinion on this isn't because the GGW folks are producing porn. The porn industry is what it is, and as far as I know there are great lengths gone to in order to make sure that those taking part are aware of what they're doing, so I'm not making any kind of moral judgment based on content. My objection is to where it's assumed that dancing in front of a camera is somehow implied consent to having one's breasts exposed against their wishes.
	__________________ _{Like love, criminals will always find a way. -- foxholeatheist The kind of pacifism I endorse is brought about by eliminating one enemy combatant at a time.-- JoeyDonuts}

26th July 2010, 07:14 AM	#2
Harpo Muse Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: England's Green & Pleasant Land Posts: 872	It's difficult to make an informed, evidence-based decision without seeing the breasts in question.
	__________________ "This statement cannot be proved" Kurt Gödel (paraphrased)

26th July 2010, 07:18 AM	#3
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,932	Is there any evidence that she protested at the time/grabbed the other persons hand, covered up immediately, yelled at them not to use the footage?
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,932	__________________ There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed. Wash this space! We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!

26th July 2010, 07:28 AM	#5
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,424	Originally Posted by TragicMonkey Didn't she have to sign a release before they could publish footage of her, topless or not? I thought that was a legal requirement, unless they blur your face. I think it depends on local laws. You could argue that GGW is a documentary, and as such would not need explicit consent to show such footage filmed in public. This of course varies by local law.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

26th July 2010, 07:30 AM	#6
bokonon Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,444	I'm not a lawyer, but as a photographer, I thought release forms were required as well. They're using her face (et al) for commercial gain. Maybe it's only reputable publishers that require release forms, however; GGW may not care. I'm surprised they went to court rather than settling (for much less than $5 mil), and I hope the girl appeals (rim shot).
bokonon Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,444	__________________ Laugh while you can, monkey boy.

26th July 2010, 07:24 AM	#4
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Pither Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 30,073	Didn't she have to sign a release before they could publish footage of her, topless or not? I thought that was a legal requirement, unless they blur your face.
	__________________ One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.

26th July 2010, 07:31 AM	#7
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,771	Originally Posted by fuelair Is there any evidence that she protested at the time/grabbed the other persons hand, covered up immediately, yelled at them not to use the footage? That's what I would have expected or that she tried to run away, something to show that she was against the filming. I would have thought the court would have also considered what behaviour she could have reasonably expected to happen at such an event and if having your boobs exposed is pretty much the norm then again can't see on what grounds she would be able to object to the footage. Outside of a few areas courts do consider what a reasonable person could expect to happen as a guide to what you can reasonably complain about. I wouldn't have thought (in the UK at least) that you could claim that having your top pulled up is even common assault. Finally do the participants in these events not have to sign a release?
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

26th July 2010, 07:40 AM	#8
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,932	Originally Posted by Darat That's what I would have expected or that she tried to run away, something to show that she was against the filming. I would have thought the court would have also considered what behaviour she could have reasonably expected to happen at such an event and if having your boobs exposed is pretty much the norm then again can't see on what grounds she would be able to object to the footage. Outside of a few areas courts do consider what a reasonable person could expect to happen as a guide to what you can reasonably complain about. I wouldn't have thought (in the UK at least) that you could claim that having your top pulled up is even common assault. Finally do the participants in these events not have to sign a release? If the event were specifically a private event sponsored by GGW then almost certainly they would - however, GGW normally simply has videographers in the crowds in public at Spring Break locations, Mardi Gras, Lake Havasu and the other places known for high levels of nudity in public. Since these are public, the rules on permission do not really apply. (I am not a lawyer, but unless they video an under 18 and use the footage they should be fine.)
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,932	__________________ There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed. Wash this space! We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!

26th July 2010, 07:46 AM	#9
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,771	Thanks I was thinking that the bar was set up as a venue for the filming, you know the sort of thing you sometimes see e.g. "There will be video recording here tonight". The only person I can see that she would have anything like a complaint against (from the article) is whoever pulled up her top, but then like I said I can't even see how that could even be considered common assault as the incident has been described. Is there a clip anywhere that we can see what they did record?
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

26th July 2010, 07:51 AM	#10
Dimitri Scholar Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Belgium Posts: 83	To be honest, she indeed really had it comming. It is a disserved treatment by the judges for not giving in to the charge. If a person wants to behave in the way she did, then that person must deal with the possible consequences of her behaviour. Another question which arises would be "did she got a bad experience during the 6 years of not being aware"? With only this article/information at hand I even doubt she was being finger-pointed by anyone.

26th July 2010, 07:57 AM	#11
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,771	Originally Posted by GreNME ...snip... I can't wrap my head around how any court would allow an implied consent justification to fly with something like this, considering implied consent isn't a justification for sexual harassment or assault. ...snip... But is there any evidence that either sexual harassment or assault occurred? From the article I think it is very difficult to argue that having your top lifted is an assault.
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

26th July 2010, 08:04 AM	#12
Kevin_Lowe Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Queensland Posts: 10,276	Originally Posted by Darat But is there any evidence that either sexual harassment or assault occurred? From the article I think it is very difficult to argue that having your top lifted is an assault. In Australia any kind of threatening behaviour counts as assault, you don't even need to make physical contact. Lifting someone's top definitely would count. In theory you could get three years but I can't imagine a custodial sentence for something like this case.
	__________________ Thinking is skilled work....People with untrained minds should no more expect to think clearly and logically than people who have never learned and never practiced can expect to find themselves good carpenters, golfers, bridge-players, or pianists. -- Alfred Mander

26th July 2010, 08:06 AM	#13
MG1962 Guest Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Kansas (Australia) Posts: 14,750	This is an absolute outrage - I think the next TAM should in the form of a protest against this kind of exploitation. We need to use TAM as a fact finding misson to see whats really happening at these spring breaks

26th July 2010, 08:09 AM	#14
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,771	Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe In Australia any kind of threatening behaviour counts as assault, you don't even need to make physical contact. Lifting someone's top definitely would count. In theory you could get three years but I can't imagine a custodial sentence for something like this case. The law sounds similar to the UK but where is the threat even of violence or danger or apprehension of violence to the girl in this incident?
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

26th July 2010, 08:15 AM	#15
KingMerv00 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Philadelphia, PA...USA Posts: 14,482	Originally Posted by GreNME I can't wrap my head around how any court would allow an implied consent justification to fly with something like this, considering implied consent isn't a justification for sexual harassment or assault. The best way to wrap your head around un-head-wrap-roundable legal outcomes is to read the court's opinion. Anyone have it on file? BTW, you can consent to assault and battery. What do you think a boxing match is? Sexual assault too. See rule 34.
	__________________ If man came from dust, why is there still dust? Last edited by KingMerv00; 26th July 2010 at 08:18 AM.

26th July 2010, 08:45 AM	#16
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,424	Originally Posted by Darat Thanks I was thinking that the bar was set up as a venue for the filming, you know the sort of thing you sometimes see e.g. "There will be video recording here tonight". The only person I can see that she would have anything like a complaint against (from the article) is whoever pulled up her top, but then like I said I can't even see how that could even be considered common assault as the incident has been described. She probably had a good assault complaint against the person who pulled her top Quote: Is there a clip anywhere that we can see what they did record? Preferably the full video not just the part that got into the published video.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

26th July 2010, 08:47 AM	#17
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,424	Originally Posted by Dimitri To be honest, she indeed really had it comming. It is a disserved treatment by the judges for not giving in to the charge. If a person wants to behave in the way she did, then that person must deal with the possible consequences of her behaviour. Dancing now rates one to be sexually assaulted and have documentation of that event sold for a profit?
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

26th July 2010, 08:48 AM	#18
Cainkane1 Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: The great American southeast Posts: 7,193	Originally Posted by GreNME http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet...ill/index.html Careful with the link, it has some NSFW content (not R rated, but definitely PG-13). So as the article tells the story, this girl was out for spring break at a club, and was dancing in front of a cameraman for the infamous Girls Gone Wild video series. She seemed to enjoy dancing in front of a camera, so the cameraman asks her to show her breasts. She declines. Apparently someone grabs the girl's top and pulls it down, exposing her breasts to the camera. The footage goes into the GGW video, but the girl (now married) takes years to find out from a friend of her husband or something like that. Since she didn't give consent, she goes to court against the makers of the GGW videos. She lost. Not only did she lose, but apparently this is a quote from the foreman of the jury: "Through her actions, she gave implied consent. She was really playing to the camera. She knew what she was doing." Now, I would completely understand objecting to this woman's demand for $5 million in compensation-- I seriously doubt her breasts or her pride are worth that much-- but saying that she gave implied consent to have her boobs exposed simply because she was dancing in front of the camera? That just seems unfathomably ridiculous and at least slightly misogynist. I agree with the author that it's somewhat of a "she was asking for it" justification for ruling against her instead of what I would have considered a more rational ruling of a lower award that the $5 million she demanded. I can't wrap my head around how any court would allow an implied consent justification to fly with something like this, considering implied consent isn't a justification for sexual harassment or assault. But since I know there are legal types here, I was wondering if perhaps there is some other explanation that would seem more rational where implied consent under the circumstances explained makes sense. I didn't find anything in the article linked by the author of anything left out that would change this from being a ruling akin to "she was asking for it." Also, I'd note that my opinion on this isn't because the GGW folks are producing porn. The porn industry is what it is, and as far as I know there are great lengths gone to in order to make sure that those taking part are aware of what they're doing, so I'm not making any kind of moral judgment based on content. My objection is to where it's assumed that dancing in front of a camera is somehow implied consent to having one's breasts exposed against their wishes. She didn't deserve $5000000.00 but she did deserve to be compensated in some way say $5000.00 dollars. I think she waited too long. If she felt she had been violated she should have tried to find a police officer. My cousin was sexually assaulted by her manager and she sued him for $1000,00.00 and was awarded $250,000.00. In her case he put his hand on her private area and when she tried to shove his hand away he put her hand down his pants. She won because she took swift legal action and the jury was impressed by her testimony.
	__________________ If at first you don't succeed try try again. Then if you fail to succeed to Hell with that. Try something else.

26th July 2010, 08:52 AM	#19
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,424	Originally Posted by Cainkane1 She didn't deserve $5000000.00 but she did deserve to be compensated in some way say $5000.00 dollars. I think she waited too long. If she felt she had been violated she should have tried to find a police officer. The thing is GGW is a big business, as such $5000 would not be much of an effect to get them to make sure they have consent of those they film flashing. The problem here is that she could have taken swift action against the person who pulled on her top, but swift action against GGW is not so easy, because they had to publish the video first.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

26th July 2010, 09:03 AM	#21
Cavemonster Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 3,916	Without seeing the video, it's hard to tell, but I can easily imagine a sequence of events that fits the description where consent can be implied. 1) Woman begins dancing in front of camera 2) Cameraman explains that they are filming for GGW and asks her to expose her breasts 3) Someone pulls down her shirt, exposing her breasts. 4) Woman laughs and continues dancing seductively for camera #4 isn't stated explicitly in the article, but her reaction after her breasts were exposed is key. If, knowing that they were filming for GGW, knowing they just filmed her nudity, she continued to dance for the camera and did not address the nudity in a negative way, then, yes, consent can clearly be implied.
Cavemonster Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 3,916	__________________ The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon. -G.K. CHESTERTON

26th July 2010, 09:10 AM	#22
SOdhner Muse Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 837	My understanding (second hand but from a reliable source) is that she did protest at the time, and that it is audible on film (I'm not clear if it's audible in the finished film or the original.) This is a clear-cut case from everything I've heard and I can't imagine how the case went this way. It's shameful and disturbing. As for the amount, if anything I think she asked for too little. The amount should be such that GGW is either terrified to ever let something like this happen again, or is unable to due to bankruptcy.
SOdhner Muse Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 837

26th July 2010, 09:16 AM	#23
Cainkane1 Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: The great American southeast Posts: 7,193	Originally Posted by SOdhner My understanding (second hand but from a reliable source) is that she did protest at the time, and that it is audible on film (I'm not clear if it's audible in the finished film or the original.) This is a clear-cut case from everything I've heard and I can't imagine how the case went this way. It's shameful and disturbing. As for the amount, if anything I think she asked for too little. The amount should be such that GGW is either terrified to ever let something like this happen again, or is unable to due to bankruptcy. The woman did deserve a substantial amount of money. The person who pulled her top down should be prosecuted. The jury foreman is an ass. If a woman says no then its no. Maybe she can sue again.
	__________________ If at first you don't succeed try try again. Then if you fail to succeed to Hell with that. Try something else.

26th July 2010, 09:21 AM	#24
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,424	Originally Posted by Cainkane1 The woman did deserve a substantial amount of money. The person who pulled her top down should be prosecuted. The jury foreman is an ass. If a woman says no then its no. Maybe she can sue again. Again I am not sure the law is on her side here. Given that they did not cause the other person to pull her top down/up, they only caught it on film and sold it. I think they probably should need a release for this, but if they were hitting a more documentary note and less of a porn note I am not sure they should. For example if it had been a video of a fight, and someone was selling "greatest bar fight caught on film" video would they need consent from both sides of the fight or not? It is a messy situation. I think they should have not shown it, but I am not sure that I would be fully comfortable with a law that meant they could not show it either.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

26th July 2010, 09:53 AM	#25
SOdhner Muse Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 837	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle I think they probably should need a release for this, but if they were hitting a more documentary note and less of a porn note I am not sure they should. That's a good point - clearly I feel it is morally wrong but there is the chance that it is not legally wrong. I'd be sad if that were the case but I don't know the specific guidelines so... hmm. ETA: Obviously the GGW are porn and not a documentary for any real purposes, again it's just the legal question.
SOdhner Muse Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 837	Last edited by SOdhner; 26th July 2010 at 09:56 AM.

26th July 2010, 09:57 AM	#26
The Fallen Serpent Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Not Oregon, Texas Posts: 1,922	Unfortunately the linked article is missing very important information about the case. A lack of consent forms does not immediately show them to be in the wrong legally. Out of curiosity and general enjoyment of half naked women I almost went to a GGW event at a bar with friends. One issue we noted was that the bar had a sign posted stating that all activity in the bar was subject to filming by the crew, consent to filming forms were not being issued to those who entered. Consent forms may have been issued to women who spent time in front of the cameras. This case may or may not be a similar situation. Local privacy laws are very important in this sort of case. Regardless, from the story as presented placing the woman in the videos does sound sleazy. Sleazy and illegal are not always the same thing. According tot he article the lawsuit was over damaging her reputation. That is a tricky claim against something that happened in a public venue as opposed to a private venue. Bars are generally open to the public rather than private members only clubs (see Utah). She may have had a stronger claim if she had treated the action of having her breasts exposed by another as criminal activity, as some laws becoming trickier with regards to filmed criminal activity. Even protesting the film after the occurance may not be enough. I also agree that her actions after the exposure may very well imply consent. It would be more helpful if someone had a link to the court findings as the media articles I can find are very one sided and lacking in crucial details.
	__________________ You don't use science to show that you are right, you use science to become right. - Randall Munroe

26th July 2010, 10:06 AM	#27
GreNME Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Folsom Prison Posts: 8,283	Originally Posted by KingMerv00 The best way to wrap your head around un-head-wrap-roundable legal outcomes is to read the court's opinion. Anyone have it on file? Not that I know of. Would it be on Findlaw yet if were even going to show up there? Are there databases of court cases to review? Originally Posted by KingMerv00 BTW, you can consent to assault and battery. What do you think a boxing match is? Sexual assault too. See rule 34. Right, but in this case both articles I've linked to mention specifically that there wasn't a consent for and allegedly the girl could be heard saying no to requests to remove her top on-camera. If there is actually footage of her saying "no" then it seems to reason that she didn't consent.
	__________________ _{Like love, criminals will always find a way. -- foxholeatheist The kind of pacifism I endorse is brought about by eliminating one enemy combatant at a time.-- JoeyDonuts}

26th July 2010, 10:15 AM	#28
Dunstan Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Sunnyvale Trailer Park Posts: 4,292	Originally Posted by KingMerv00 The best way to wrap your head around un-head-wrap-roundable legal outcomes is to read the court's opinion. Anyone have it on file? It was a jury verdict, not a decision by the judge. At most there might have been a special verdict form with some yes/no questions answered by the jury, i.e. "Did the plaintiff consent?" There may end up being an opinion by a judge in post-trial motions and/or on appeal, but those aren't likely to tell you much about the jury's reasoning. At best you'll get a judge's explanation of how the evidence was (or was not) sufficient that a reasonable jury could have reached such a conclusion.

26th July 2010, 10:16 AM	#29
GreNME Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Folsom Prison Posts: 8,283	Originally Posted by Darat But is there any evidence that either sexual harassment or assault occurred? From the article I think it is very difficult to argue that having your top lifted is an assault. Sexual assault. The phrase "sexual harassment or assault" is perhaps not parsing correctly-- harassment or assault that is sexual in nature. And to that, both having your top pulled down unwanted and a stranger filming then selling it could be construed as sexual assault or sexual harassment, depending on how strongly one wished to press the charges. ----- Originally Posted by Dimitri To be honest, she indeed really had it comming. It is a disserved treatment by the judges for not giving in to the charge. If a person wants to behave in the way she did, then that person must deal with the possible consequences of her behaviour. Rapists all over would love this to be the common attitude in courtrooms-- then all they have to do is hang out where women are behaving in ways where they're "asking for it." Short skirt? Asking for it. Waving her hips at you suggestively? Totally asking for it. Wearing a thong bikini to the beach? Heck, that's begging for it, amirite? What a ridiculous pretense of logic.
	__________________ _{Like love, criminals will always find a way. -- foxholeatheist The kind of pacifism I endorse is brought about by eliminating one enemy combatant at a time.-- JoeyDonuts}

26th July 2010, 10:20 AM	#30
GreNME Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Folsom Prison Posts: 8,283	Originally Posted by Dunstan It was a jury verdict, not a decision by the judge. At most there might have been a special verdict form with some yes/no questions answered by the jury, i.e. "Did the plaintiff consent?" There may end up being an opinion by a judge in post-trial motions and/or on appeal, but those aren't likely to tell you much about the jury's reasoning. At best you'll get a judge's explanation of how the evidence was (or was not) sufficient that a reasonable jury could have reached such a conclusion. Yeah, but the jury not only seemed to be commenting on whether evidence was sufficient, they made a positive statement regarding her behavior and implied consent. The quote both articles I linked attribute to the jury foreman is the following: "Through her actions, she gave implied consent. She was really playing to the camera. She knew what she was doing." If the video really does have her saying no and the jury is saying that doing so is superceded by "her actions," then I have to say I find that jury decision appalling.
	__________________ _{Like love, criminals will always find a way. -- foxholeatheist The kind of pacifism I endorse is brought about by eliminating one enemy combatant at a time.-- JoeyDonuts}

26th July 2010, 10:35 AM	#31
The Fallen Serpent Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Not Oregon, Texas Posts: 1,922	SOdhner claimed she protested when it happened. Neither the OP article nor the article linked through it make that claim. It is possible her actions did imply consent after her top was pulled up. This is the problem with taking a single comment by the jury possibly out of context to other comments and the evidence. Despite saying no multiple times to the request to remove her top, if she conintued dancing for the camera once it happened that could be taken as implied consent. It is really dependant on her reaction. The situation as presented I find the jury's comment disgusting, but I suspect we do not have the full story.
	__________________ You don't use science to show that you are right, you use science to become right. - Randall Munroe

26th July 2010, 10:45 AM	#32
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,771	Originally Posted by GreNME ...snip... If the video really does have her saying no and the jury is saying that doing so is superceded by "her actions," then I have to say I find that jury decision appalling. I don't understand this - it's pretty much established that if you can reasonable have expected something to happen (we are not talking about a criminal act) then you are implying consent. As an example - I go on a ghost train ride, a ghost pops-out and I jump and wet myself; I would not be able to make a claim for that because my consent to be scared is implied because it is reasonable to expect to be scared on a ghost train. The same if I went on a fast whirling ride and I spewed-up all over myself, again the same principle applies. This type of judgement has nothing to do with a defence against a prosecution for rape "she was asking for it"- I can't understand why you are even mentioning that in relation to this incident, this is a civil case that has nothing to do with assault, sexual or otherwise.
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008 Last edited by Darat; 26th July 2010 at 10:46 AM. Reason: th to v

26th July 2010, 10:47 AM	#33
SOdhner Muse Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 837	Originally Posted by The Fallen Serpent SOdhner claimed she protested when it happened. Neither the OP article nor the article linked through it make that claim. Yeah, I can't get to where I saved the source right now and can't remember which one it was (I read too many stories at too many places to keep them straight) so I'll have to find it later and share. I wouldn't want to spread too much "my friend's brother's barber said..." around.
SOdhner Muse Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 837

26th July 2010, 10:51 AM	#34
GreNME Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Folsom Prison Posts: 8,283	Originally Posted by The Fallen Serpent SOdhner claimed she protested when it happened. Neither the OP article nor the article linked through it make that claim. Second link I gave in the OP: "Stephen Evans of St. Louis, her lawyer, argued Thursday that Doe never gave consent — and even could be heard in original footage saying "no" when asked to show her breasts shortly before another woman suddenly pulled Doe's top down." If this footage exists, then the question of consent seems cut and dry to me. Originally Posted by The Fallen Serpent It is possible her actions did imply consent after her top was pulled up. This is the problem with taking a single comment by the jury possibly out of context to other comments and the evidence. Despite saying no multiple times to the request to remove her top, if she conintued dancing for the camera once it happened that could be taken as implied consent. It is really dependant on her reaction. The situation as presented I find the jury's comment disgusting, but I suspect we do not have the full story. How do you get "she knew what she was doing" and "implied consent" taken out of context with something like this? If the girl said no and there's footage of her doing so, then consent was not given. It wouldn't matter if she was giggling, making kissy-faces, or shaking her butt at the camera while she did it, her saying "no" puts consent to showing her boobs in the negative.
	__________________ _{Like love, criminals will always find a way. -- foxholeatheist The kind of pacifism I endorse is brought about by eliminating one enemy combatant at a time.-- JoeyDonuts}

26th July 2010, 10:56 AM	#36
GreNME Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Folsom Prison Posts: 8,283	Originally Posted by Darat I don't understand this - it's pretty much established that if you can reasonable have expected something to happen (we are not talking about a criminal act) then you are implying consent. As an example - I go on a ghost train ride, a ghost pops-out and I jump and wet myself; I would not be able to make a claim for that because my consent to be scared is implied because it is reasonable to expect to be scared on a ghost train. The same if I went on a fast whirling ride and I spewed-up all over myself, again the same principle applies. Your comparison doesn't work because she allegedly declined requests to expose her breasts, making the act of exposure against her will. I don't see how there would be a reasonable expectation that someone is going to remove your clothes against your will when you go out someplace, regardless of whether the club is currently allowing a porn company to shoot video there. Originally Posted by Darat This type of judgement has nothing to do with a defence against a prosecution for rape "she was asking for it"- I can't understand why you are even mentioning that in relation to this incident, this is a civil case that has nothing to do with assault, sexual or otherwise. If the jury had agreed that she didn't consent, there would have been cause for criminal charges against the company who sold the video in most states I'm aware of.
	__________________ _{Like love, criminals will always find a way. -- foxholeatheist The kind of pacifism I endorse is brought about by eliminating one enemy combatant at a time.-- JoeyDonuts}

26th July 2010, 11:00 AM	#37
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,771	Originally Posted by GreNME Second link I gave in the OP: "Stephen Evans of St. Louis, her lawyer, argued Thursday that Doe never gave consent — and even could be heard in original footage saying "no" when asked to show her breasts shortly before another woman suddenly pulled Doe's top down." If this footage exists, then the question of consent seems cut and dry to me. ...snip... It's hard from the sparse information in the articles to be sure but to me it reads that she was suing because they included her at all in the video, not just because her top was pulled down and they videoed that and used it. Her lawyer says: "She is entitled to go out with friends and have a good time and not have her top pulled down and get that in a video."" The problem with that statement is that it is trying to conflate two separate things - her being filmed and someone pulling down her top. The two things are separate (unless the claim was that the person who pulled down her top was working for the video company?). If they had permission to video in the bar and she knew that they were videoing (as the article seems to imply) then I can't see how it can be said that she didn't consent to being videoed. The fact that someone also pulled down her top is a matter she should pursue with whoever pulled her top down, which does not seem to have been anyone connected with the video company. ETA: Let me give an another example which excludes the boobs, it would be no different if she had been dancing in front of the camera and fell over, "arse over tits" as we would say in the UK, displaying her knickers to the world would you say that the video company could not feature that in their video of the event?
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008 Last edited by Darat; 26th July 2010 at 11:03 AM. Reason: iit - i