This is a bad verdict

[syrenn]

Think about it some more, and add in the fact that GGW doesn't care if they film minors for their videos.

You can not like the GGW concept, but that is a flat out lie. You cannot stop an underage person from doing anything that they want legal or not (Tracy Lords).

The girl was not a minor.

If so, just like Tracy Lords all video of the event would be considered child pron and illegal.

 

[ConHog]

She objected before, during, and after. What more does she have to do to avoid being assaulted, and having the film of that assault available for anyone and everyone?

Ok, let's say I punch you in the nose and George films it. Who are you going to go after for assault? Use your head here QW. The woman isn't complaining about her top being removed or she would be suing the person who did so. So forget the claims of assault, b/c she herself isn't even making that claim.

I never said she was making that claim.

I am saying she clearly indicated, before, during, and after the actual taping, that she had no wish to appear topless in the video. Yet somehow, because it suits your warped, misogynistic,l since of justice, she did not do enough to protest the event, and was further obligated to do something else, even though she had no idea they had actually used the video at all.

She may have not know for fact that the video would be used, but she damn sure knew it was taken, and she knew who took it, and yet she didn't complain until MUCH later and only then because her husband found out about it.

I hope you are seriously not contending that she had no idea the cameras were there?

 

[ConHog]

She objected before, during, and after. What more does she have to do to avoid being assaulted, and having the film of that assault available for anyone and everyone?

Lets see, how about call the police and have all tapes that the GGW team had confiscated as evidence at the time of the incident. How better to prove she was assaulted, she was more then likely have the perp on tape.

Police do not have a right to confiscate film, it has to be subpenaed. Which means that the DA would have to do it, which he would not have if he thought that she had given implied consent to the whole thing by being there.

You are WAY off base QW. My wife informs that in this case, the woman should have filed charges against the man who "assaulted" her, and a civil case against GGW at the time of the event. She further states that her feelings about whether the woman consented to the video being made or not would be irrelevant to her doing her job, which in this case means she would absolutely want to see the video evidence if it existed, of the assault, which means she would have gotten a copy of teh DVD, she further says she would have gotten an injunction to make sure the video wasn't aired until her case was concluded.

The civil case of course wouldn't have been her problem as a DA b/c GGW broke no laws

 

[Immanuel]

You know, GGW, could have prevented this entire discussion had they simply blurred out her face.

Immie

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Because you are the one claiming that she was assaulted and that this was a bad verdict. She didn't think she was assaulted at the time. Did she call the police and demand that the person who took her top off be arrested for assault? Did she leave or keep dancing (ive not seen the video so i dont know) If she stayed then she wasn't very upset about it.

I am not saying it didn't happen. What i am saying is she wasn't THAT upset about what happened at the time. If she felt it was an assault then she should have reported it and pressed charges. What she is upset about NOW is that she was recognized and wants a cut of the money from GGW.

What she sued GGW for was because she feels her reputation is now damaged because she appears on a GGW episode. In my opinion this is her "out" so she can stay a good girl.

Her top was pulled down without her permission. Both sides of the case stipulated to that occurring, so I guess your only problem is that you don't like me calling it an assualt. Could you please explain how grabbing someone and stripping them against their will is not an assault. Does her decision not to make an issue of it at the time make it not an assault?

The assault occurred, that is a given, and she is only objecting to the fact, as she did at the time, and on the video, that GGW showed her topless image without her permission. The jury decided that she gave permission because she was in the bar in the first place, and that this implied consent for GGW to film her topless, despite the fact that she clearly denied them that permission.

This is a bad verdict because it goes against decades of law, and the idea that women have the right to control their body themselves. This decision took her right to control her body and gave it to the producers of GGW and the guy who assaulted her.

She went after GGW because they are the ones who made money off of her image after she said no. Did the guy who did it make money off his action?

Please explain to me again how this is a good verdict.

Some verdicts are neither good or bad, but for or against. This is not a criminal case it is a civil case asking damages in the form of money. She lost. Remember we are only seeing and reading what is "reported" and not all what was presented in court.

The OP quote calls this a bad verdict because it was an assault. You call it an assault. If that is the case then why is this in civil court and not in criminal court with the tapes used as evidence of the assault and the person who did the deed standing trial.

The problem i have is that she is not seeking criminal actions against the assailant but damages for her reputation being harmed. Could it be that she gave up the rights to her reputation when she entered a bar where GGW was being filmed?

I agree with the jury. Her wanting to preform in a GGW event and allowing herself to be filmed is consent. If she had a problem with her image being shown boobs out she should have called the cops, yelled her bloody lungs out, had the guy arrested, and had the tapes confiscated and destroyed.

It is not in criminal court because she is pursuing monetary damages against the people who profited from her humiliation and assault. Why do you have a hard time grasping that concept?

No means no, another concept you seem to have a problem with. If she had been doing a pron movie, and changed her mind just before penetration, and the guy had continued, would that be rape? Even if you are right about her consent, the minute she changed her mind the consent goes away, and that makes GGW wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

From my understanding, this was a civil case and not a criminal one. Also, the consent was not just her dancing for the cameras or being at the bar, the GGW brand actually advertises at college campuses and rents the bar for a few days to film. Before going into the establishment, you are briefed on what is going on, what is expected of you and you give your verbal consent to be filmed or you won't be admitted. If she really had a problem with her boobs being flashed, then she should have gone after the person that lifted her shirt. The cameramen are not allowed to touch anyone at the establishment for obvious legal reasons so it had to be another patron that lifted her shirt.

How do you know she didn't?

The point of this case was that GGW essentially filmed a sexual assault, and made money off the girl who was victimized. Now you are saying that she consented to the baring of her breasts despite the fact that she is on video clearly saying no when asked, and immediately covering up her breasts after it occurred. Even if she gave prior verbal and written consent to having her breasts exposed, which is not the case, she is entitled to change her mind. GGW might have a case against her for breach of contract, if they paid her in advance. That would still not entitle them to profit off a crime.

When has it become against the law to film a crime in progress?

Ever here of child pornography?

I did not say GGW was guilty of filming a crime, I said they were guilty of marketing her nude image without her consent.

Think about it some more, and add in the fact that GGW doesn't care if they film minors for their videos.

You can not like the GGW concept, but that is a flat out lie. You cannot stop an underage person from doing anything that they want legal or not (Tracy Lords).

I have no problem with the GGW concept. That does not change the fact that they have filmed minors without their clothing on though.

Girls Gone Wild Guy Sentenced - E! Online

Which part of that was a lie?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Ok, let's say I punch you in the nose and George films it. Who are you going to go after for assault? Use your head here QW. The woman isn't complaining about her top being removed or she would be suing the person who did so. So forget the claims of assault, b/c she herself isn't even making that claim.

I never said she was making that claim.

I am saying she clearly indicated, before, during, and after the actual taping, that she had no wish to appear topless in the video. Yet somehow, because it suits your warped, misogynistic,l since of justice, she did not do enough to protest the event, and was further obligated to do something else, even though she had no idea they had actually used the video at all.

She may have not know for fact that the video would be used, but she damn sure knew it was taken, and she knew who took it, and yet she didn't complain until MUCH later and only then because her husband found out about it.

I hope you are seriously not contending that she had no idea the cameras were there?

Let me try this in words as small as possible.

She did not give the OK for them to show her topless.

There, all small words, do you get it now?

 

[ConHog]

How do you know she didn't?

The point of this case was that GGW essentially filmed a sexual assault, and made money off the girl who was victimized. Now you are saying that she consented to the baring of her breasts despite the fact that she is on video clearly saying no when asked, and immediately covering up her breasts after it occurred. Even if she gave prior verbal and written consent to having her breasts exposed, which is not the case, she is entitled to change her mind. GGW might have a case against her for breach of contract, if they paid her in advance. That would still not entitle them to profit off a crime.

When has it become against the law to film a crime in progress?

Ever here of child pornography?

I did not say GGW was guilty of filming a crime, I said they were guilty of marketing her nude image without her consent.

Think about it some more, and add in the fact that GGW doesn't care if they film minors for their videos.

You can not like the GGW concept, but that is a flat out lie. You cannot stop an underage person from doing anything that they want legal or not (Tracy Lords).

I have no problem with the GGW concept. That does not change the fact that they have filmed minors without their clothing on though.

Girls Gone Wild Guy Sentenced - E! Online

Which part of that was a lie?

Being guilty of one crime, does not mean being guilty of another crime.

 

[syrenn]

Her top was pulled down without her permission. Both sides of the case stipulated to that occurring, so I guess your only problem is that you don't like me calling it an assualt. Could you please explain how grabbing someone and stripping them against their will is not an assault. Does her decision not to make an issue of it at the time make it not an assault?

The assault occurred, that is a given, and she is only objecting to the fact, as she did at the time, and on the video, that GGW showed her topless image without her permission. The jury decided that she gave permission because she was in the bar in the first place, and that this implied consent for GGW to film her topless, despite the fact that she clearly denied them that permission.

This is a bad verdict because it goes against decades of law, and the idea that women have the right to control their body themselves. This decision took her right to control her body and gave it to the producers of GGW and the guy who assaulted her.

She went after GGW because they are the ones who made money off of her image after she said no. Did the guy who did it make money off his action?

Please explain to me again how this is a good verdict.

Some verdicts are neither good or bad, but for or against. This is not a criminal case it is a civil case asking damages in the form of money. She lost. Remember we are only seeing and reading what is "reported" and not all what was presented in court.

The OP quote calls this a bad verdict because it was an assault. You call it an assault. If that is the case then why is this in civil court and not in criminal court with the tapes used as evidence of the assault and the person who did the deed standing trial.

The problem i have is that she is not seeking criminal actions against the assailant but damages for her reputation being harmed. Could it be that she gave up the rights to her reputation when she entered a bar where GGW was being filmed?

I agree with the jury. Her wanting to preform in a GGW event and allowing herself to be filmed is consent. If she had a problem with her image being shown boobs out she should have called the cops, yelled her bloody lungs out, had the guy arrested, and had the tapes confiscated and destroyed.

It is not in criminal court because she is pursuing monetary damages against the people who profited from her humiliation and assault. Why do you have a hard time grasping that concept?

No means no, another concept you seem to have a problem with. If she had been doing a pron movie, and changed her mind just before penetration, and the guy had continued, would that be rape? Even if you are right about her consent, the minute she changed her mind the consent goes away, and that makes GGW wrong.

I understand why she is in civil court. Being part of a GGW event and filming discounts any claim she has of humiliation. Again if she is upset about an assault then she needs to use the film in a criminal trial. Once she has a conviction of that then she can sue GGW for reproducing a crime and profiting off of it.


I understand No is No better then you think love, so don't get on your high horse with me about that.

Yes, in the hypothetical case you state that would be rape. A crime. The film of the event would be used as evidence and never be allowed to be sold or used. Same for this woman. If she was assaulted she should have filed charges and had an injunction placed on GGW.

The fact that she only had a problem about any of it was when a college of her husband recognized her makes it all suspect.

I am not saying that GGW is faultless in all of this. But awarding her monetary damages for having her husband find her out as a performer in a GGW event during her wild and crazy college days is, in my opinion wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Lets see, how about call the police and have all tapes that the GGW team had confiscated as evidence at the time of the incident. How better to prove she was assaulted, she was more then likely have the perp on tape.

Police do not have a right to confiscate film, it has to be subpenaed. Which means that the DA would have to do it, which he would not have if he thought that she had given implied consent to the whole thing by being there.

You are WAY off base QW. My wife informs that in this case, the woman should have filed charges against the man who "assaulted" her, and a civil case against GGW at the time of the event. She further states that her feelings about whether the woman consented to the video being made or not would be irrelevant to her doing her job, which in this case means she would absolutely want to see the video evidence if it existed, of the assault, which means she would have gotten a copy of teh DVD, she further says she would have gotten an injunction to make sure the video wasn't aired until her case was concluded.

The civil case of course wouldn't have been her problem as a DA b/c GGW broke no laws

She would have used a subpena to get the video, the police cannot just take it. That was, and is, my contention.

 

[ConHog]

I never said she was making that claim.

I am saying she clearly indicated, before, during, and after the actual taping, that she had no wish to appear topless in the video. Yet somehow, because it suits your warped, misogynistic,l since of justice, she did not do enough to protest the event, and was further obligated to do something else, even though she had no idea they had actually used the video at all.

She may have not know for fact that the video would be used, but she damn sure knew it was taken, and she knew who took it, and yet she didn't complain until MUCH later and only then because her husband found out about it.

I hope you are seriously not contending that she had no idea the cameras were there?

Let me try this in words as small as possible.

She did not give the OK for them to show her topless.

There, all small words, do you get it now?

I have been respectful to you in this thread, even though we disagree. If you would like me to instead move you over to the group of posters who deserve my disdain then by all means continue with the veiled insults, and I will respond in kind.


Out of curiosity, what is your degree(s) in?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

When has it become against the law to film a crime in progress?

Ever here of child pornography?

I did not say GGW was guilty of filming a crime, I said they were guilty of marketing her nude image without her consent.

You can not like the GGW concept, but that is a flat out lie. You cannot stop an underage person from doing anything that they want legal or not (Tracy Lords).

I have no problem with the GGW concept. That does not change the fact that they have filmed minors without their clothing on though.

Girls Gone Wild Guy Sentenced - E! Online

Which part of that was a lie?

Being guilty of one crime, does not mean being guilty of another crime.

No it doesn't, but it can be used to indicate character. Since GGW has a history, a long one, of ignoring laws, and have even of showing others without their consent before, I question their character when they contend they ever had her permission for anything.

Preponderance of the evidence is the standard in civil court.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Some verdicts are neither good or bad, but for or against. This is not a criminal case it is a civil case asking damages in the form of money. She lost. Remember we are only seeing and reading what is "reported" and not all what was presented in court.

The OP quote calls this a bad verdict because it was an assault. You call it an assault. If that is the case then why is this in civil court and not in criminal court with the tapes used as evidence of the assault and the person who did the deed standing trial.

The problem i have is that she is not seeking criminal actions against the assailant but damages for her reputation being harmed. Could it be that she gave up the rights to her reputation when she entered a bar where GGW was being filmed?

I agree with the jury. Her wanting to preform in a GGW event and allowing herself to be filmed is consent. If she had a problem with her image being shown boobs out she should have called the cops, yelled her bloody lungs out, had the guy arrested, and had the tapes confiscated and destroyed.

It is not in criminal court because she is pursuing monetary damages against the people who profited from her humiliation and assault. Why do you have a hard time grasping that concept?

No means no, another concept you seem to have a problem with. If she had been doing a pron movie, and changed her mind just before penetration, and the guy had continued, would that be rape? Even if you are right about her consent, the minute she changed her mind the consent goes away, and that makes GGW wrong.

I understand why she is in civil court. Being part of a GGW event and filming discounts any claim she has of humiliation. Again if she is upset about an assault then she needs to use the film in a criminal trial. Once she has a conviction of that then she can sue GGW for reproducing a crime and profiting off of it.


I understand No is No better then you think love, so don't get on your high horse with me about that.

Yes, in the hypothetical case you state that would be rape. A crime. The film of the event would be used as evidence and never be allowed to be sold or used. Same for this woman. If she was assaulted she should have filed charges and had an injunction placed on GGW.

The fact that she only had a problem about any of it was when a college of her husband recognized her makes it all suspect.

I am not saying that GGW is faultless in all of this. But awarding her monetary damages for having her husband find her out as a performer in a GGW event during her wild and crazy college days is, in my opinion wrong.

Or maybe she just assumed, as have others, that when she told them she did not want to be on the video she would not be on it. That would mean that she went through her life assuming the incident was not out in public, until she heard about it from a friend.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

She may have not know for fact that the video would be used, but she damn sure knew it was taken, and she knew who took it, and yet she didn't complain until MUCH later and only then because her husband found out about it.

I hope you are seriously not contending that she had no idea the cameras were there?

Let me try this in words as small as possible.

She did not give the OK for them to show her topless.

There, all small words, do you get it now?

I have been respectful to you in this thread, even though we disagree. If you would like me to instead move you over to the group of posters who deserve my disdain then by all means continue with the veiled insults, and I will respond in kind.


Out of curiosity, what is your degree(s) in?

You seem to have a problem grasping the concept that she did not give them permission to show her topless, and insist that the fact that she was in the bar was implied consent.

Explain to me how the fuck that works, because it doesn't make any sense. Even GGW did not deny that she said no, because it was right there in the video. How on Earth does no mean yes?

 

[jgbkab]

Ever here of child pornography?

Child porn (the crime) would be the recording of the act. So if someone was filming the person that was recording the act of child porn (committing the crime) but not actually filming the child porn, is that a crime?

I did not say GGW was guilty of filming a crime, I said they were guilty of marketing her nude image without her consent.

If she was nude in public, GGW has the right to her nude images. I know that if a woman comes to my home and allows me to take pictures of her, I have the legal rights to those pictures and not the woman.

I have no problem with the GGW concept. That does not change the fact that they have filmed minors without their clothing on though.

Girls Gone Wild Guy Sentenced - E! Online

Which part of that was a lie?

You said that GGW doesn't care. First of all, it's a crime. GGW would care if they lost the business for a few underage images.

 

[ConHog]

Ever here of child pornography?

I did not say GGW was guilty of filming a crime, I said they were guilty of marketing her nude image without her consent.



I have no problem with the GGW concept. That does not change the fact that they have filmed minors without their clothing on though.

Girls Gone Wild Guy Sentenced - E! Online

Which part of that was a lie?

Being guilty of one crime, does not mean being guilty of another crime.

No it doesn't, but it can be used to indicate character. Since GGW has a history, a long one, of ignoring laws, and have even of showing others without their consent before, I question their character when they contend they ever had her permission for anything.

Preponderance of the evidence is the standard in civil court.

Actually, no it can't be used to indicate a pattern. Prior crimes are generally inadmissible in court.

Now if you're talking about civil court, then crimes are not the focus and prove my point that the crime you mentioned is irrelevant to this thread.