This is a bad verdict

[Modbert]

Or less?

How exactly was suing someone who made money off of her without her consent frivolous?

Isn't there a word for that? Didn't the 14th amendment make that illegal?

Less. Considering they even only made $1.5 million on the video, $5 million is a ridiculous amount. Saying she should of asked for more would be even more ridiculous.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

My opinion on the actual verdict: If she's at the bar, dancing in front of the cameras for Girls Gone Wild, then I'm not sure what exactly she was expecting. Someone taping a video for Girls Gone Wild isn't going to be taping someone unless they're going to show skin. That's their whole thing.

What I find interesting and what is completely overlooked here is that she's 20 and at this bar. She shouldn't of even been there in the first place probably.



And another thing, asking for $5 million is a quick way for them to think your lawsuit is ridiculous.

You can be 18 and get into bars, just depends on the state. In Florida, 18 to enter, 21 to drink.

Same in Arkansas and Missouri I know, IF the bars have a menu. No menu, no admittance under 21.

This verdict was correct. Who sees a Girls Gone Wild camera crew and thinks "nah they won't film me dancing naked?"

I bet your ADA would disagree. No means no, all the time, and she was clearly heard on tape saying no to exposing her breasts, which made the exposing of those breasts without her permission a sexual assault.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Or less?

How exactly was suing someone who made money off of her without her consent frivolous?

Isn't there a word for that? Didn't the 14th amendment make that illegal?

Less. Considering they even only made $1.5 million on the video, $5 million is a ridiculous amount. Saying she should of asked for more would be even more ridiculous.

Ever here of the concept of punitive damages? If they end up loosing money every time they sell a video of someone who got assaulted they would be a lot less likely to actually put things like this in their videos.

 

[Modbert]

Ever here of the concept of punitive damages? If they end up loosing money every time they sell a video of someone who got assaulted they would be a lot less likely to actually put things like this in their videos.

For some reason I feel like if I replace the words GGW with BP and selling a video tape with selling a galleon of gas you would feel a lot more different.

 

[Ravi]

I thought the GGW people didn't advertise themselves while they were filming.

 

[syrenn]

You can be 18 and get into bars, just depends on the state. In Florida, 18 to enter, 21 to drink.

Same in Arkansas and Missouri I know, IF the bars have a menu. No menu, no admittance under 21.

This verdict was correct. Who sees a Girls Gone Wild camera crew and thinks "nah they won't film me dancing naked?"

I bet your ADA would disagree. No means no, all the time, and she was clearly heard on tape saying no to exposing her breasts, which made the exposing of those breasts without her permission a sexual assault.

She didn't seem to think it was a sexual assault until she heard she was in the video. She didnt sue for sexual assault she wanted her cut of the profits and then some.

He reputation was not damaged. She did that herself by getting up on the bar and preforming for girls gone wild. She feels her reputation is now damaged because she was recognized!

I would be more in her favor if she tried to charge the person who ripped her top off with assult, demanded that all copies of the film be destroyed and never be re printed or sold, and demanded the amount of money they made off of the film.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I do not see how this can be justified even under the specious reasoning the jury used.

A jury ruled yesterday against a woman who claimed her reputation was damaged after she was featured on a "Girls Gone Wild" video. What makes this case remarkable is that she didn't expose her own breasts - she was assaulted. STLToday reports that the woman, identified only as Jane Doe, was dancing in at the former Rum Jungle bar in 2004 when someone reached up and pulled her tank top down, exposing her breasts to the "Girls Gone Wild" camera. Jane Doe, who was 20 at the time the tape was made, is now living in Missouri with her husband and two children. She only found out about the video in 2008, when a friend of her husband's saw the "Girls Gone Wild Sorority Orgy" video and recognized her face. He called up her husband, and in what has got to be the most awkward conversation ever, informed him that his wife's breasts were kinda famous.
The woman sued Girls Gone Wild for $5 million in damages. After deliberating for just 90 minutes on Thursday, the St. Louis jury came back with a verdict in favor of the smut peddlers. Patrick O'Brien, the jury foreman, explained later to reporters that they figured if she was willing to dance in front of the photographer, she was probably cool with having her breasts on film. They said she gave implicit consent by being at the bar, and by participating in the filming - though she never signed a consent form, and she can be heard on camera saying "no, no" when asked to show her breasts.

Jury Decides Consent Is Not Required For Girls Gone Wild


If you want to have some fun go to River Front Times and let them know how you feel about them naming the victim of a sexual assault as Ass Clown of the Week.

3. Jane Doe: The unnamed woman from St. Charles who lost her http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2010/07/girls_gone_wild_wins_lawsuit.php $5-million lawsuit vs. Girls Gone Wild this week for airing video of her topless. Doe was caught partially nude after someone pulled her shirt down at a nightclub on Laclede's Landing. A St. Louis jury ruled that although Doe did not verbally consent to appearing nude in the film, she asked for it by dancing and performing in front of GGW cameras.

http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2010/07/ass_clown_of_the_week_july_23.php

implicit consent: she danced in front of the cameras. she was aware her shirt was pulled. did she protest then and there? if not, I'd say the consent was more than implicit. she allowed herself to be filmed and did not protest even though she knew what the film would be used for.

 

[Modbert]

I thought the GGW people didn't advertise themselves while they were filming.

Of course they do. Hell, you'd be surprised what they get for a damn shirt.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I thought the GGW people didn't advertise themselves while they were filming.

Of course they do. Hell, you'd be surprised what they get for a damn shirt.

poor Ravi, there goes her view of all these women being victims.

 

[syrenn]

implicit consent: she danced in front of the cameras. she was aware her shirt was pulled. did she protest then and there? if not, I'd say the consent was more than implicit. she allowed herself to be filmed and did not protest even though she knew what the film would be used for.

I agree.

She didn't complain until she was recognized by friends.

 

[Madeline]

Presumably she did not know, syrenn.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

implicit consent: she danced in front of the cameras. she was aware her shirt was pulled. did she protest then and there? if not, I'd say the consent was more than implicit. she allowed herself to be filmed and did not protest even though she knew what the film would be used for.

I agree.

She didn't complain until she was recognized by friends.

she made a poor decision in a bar. she went on a dance floor where women were being exploited. she had her shirt pulled. we see lots of that on these videos.

ignorance is no excuse or defense. she may not have know it was captured and made the cut. she was most likely high, on drugs, booze, or the moment. either way, she pays.

there's a few morals to this story

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Presumably she did not know, syrenn.

she's on tape speaking to them. what could she not know that has any relevance?

 

[ConHog]

You can be 18 and get into bars, just depends on the state. In Florida, 18 to enter, 21 to drink.

Same in Arkansas and Missouri I know, IF the bars have a menu. No menu, no admittance under 21.

This verdict was correct. Who sees a Girls Gone Wild camera crew and thinks "nah they won't film me dancing naked?"

I bet your ADA would disagree. No means no, all the time, and she was clearly heard on tape saying no to exposing her breasts, which made the exposing of those breasts without her permission a sexual assault.

Actually my ADA agrees with me, and several others on this board. IF she had a problem with the video, she should have spoke up then. The fact that she said nothing until confronted by her husband indicates that she gave consent at the time of filming despite her alleged protestations.

She just saw a chance to make money here, and that SHOULD never be rewarded.

 

[George Costanza]

The girls that do consent to be taped are going to regret it one day.

So are the girls that are getting tattooed these days.

 

[ConHog]

The girls that do consent to be taped are going to regret it one day.

So are the girls that are getting tattooed these days.

One would think so.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The girls that do consent to be taped are going to regret it one day.

not unless they're all as mildly brain deficient or as morally fucked up as you are.

most women today are not ashamed of their bodies.
i say this women made a bad decision because she was a moralistic twit to begin with.

if anyone gets married and their spouse gets hung up on something they've done in the past, they need to rethink their marriage vows and how sacred they are supposed to be.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The girls that do consent to be taped are going to regret it one day.

So are the girls that are getting tattooed these days.

so will many of the guys, but that is a different can of worms than moralistic bullshit and the human body/flesh....where sex is present moralistic Americans shit the bed

 

[Madeline]

Presumably she did not know, syrenn.

she's on tape speaking to them. what could she not know that has any relevance?

She's on tape speaking to the cameramen?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Presumably she did not know, syrenn.

she's on tape speaking to them. what could she not know that has any relevance?

She's on tape speaking to the cameramen?

They said she gave implicit consent by being at the bar, and by participating in the filming - though she never signed a consent form, and she can be heard on camera saying "no, no" when asked to show her breasts.

maybe the audience that is hooting and hollering because the cameras are rolling? she is obviously dancing with awareness of the cameras rolling. who exactly she is speaking to is irrelevant to the decision in the case. if it were she could file an appeal, no?