This is a bad verdict

[Madeline]

Well, as they say, bad facts make bad law. Apparently the jury saw her conduct as so sexually inviting that "anything goes". Personally I think they were wrong, but I did not hear the case.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

and I for one give her the benefit of the doubt over the issue of money. this might all stem from a christian/religious morality that has her embarrassed and ashamed.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Well, as they say, bad facts make bad law. Apparently the jury saw her conduct as so sexually inviting that "anything goes". Personally I think they were wrong, but I did not hear the case.

I have no idea what you are reading into this case. Whatever it is it's irrelevant. This is a simple case of consent. I doubt the jury was asked to rule on morality.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

So, the fact that she actually said no to the request, and reacted negatively after the event, and that this is all on tape, proves she consented.

Wow, I hope your ADA never works in sex crimes because a lot of people will walk free. Apparently implied consent of being dressed provocatively, dancing, or being in the wrong place, makes sexual assault justifiable. I will be sure to reference that opinion if I ever decide to rape someone.

I guess those people who think you want to roll laws back to the 50s are right.

 

[ConHog]

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.

So, the fact that she actually said no to the request, and reacted negatively after the event, and that this is all on tape, proves she consented.

Wow, I hope your ADA never works in sex crimes because a lot of people will walk free. Apparently implied consent of being dressed provocatively, dancing, or being in the wrong place, makes sexual assault justifiable. I will be sure to reference that opinion if I ever decide to rape someone.

I guess those people who think you want to roll laws back to the 50s are right.

Actually, my wife does handle rape cases, although they are VERY rare around here. And, although that is slightly different because of statute of limitations and such. She says that yes, if a victim came forward years after the "rape" and the incident was on tape with her saying "oh no oh no" but she knew who did it but made no attempt to complain to anyone for an extended period of time she would have a VERY hard decision about whether to prosecute or not, although really it would be her bosses call with her input, and that she would not call it a baf verdict if it came back not guilty.

 

[Madeline]

I'm unclear as to what anyone believes this lady should have done to prevent (or try to) the filming and broadcasting of her sexual assault?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

So, the fact that she actually said no to the request, and reacted negatively after the event, and that this is all on tape, proves she consented.

Wow, I hope your ADA never works in sex crimes because a lot of people will walk free. Apparently implied consent of being dressed provocatively, dancing, or being in the wrong place, makes sexual assault justifiable. I will be sure to reference that opinion if I ever decide to rape someone.

I guess those people who think you want to roll laws back to the 50s are right.

Actually, my wife does handle rape cases, although they are VERY rare around here. And, although that is slightly different because of statute of limitations and such. She says that yes, if a victim came forward years after the "rape" and the incident was on tape with her saying "oh no oh no" but she knew who did it but made no attempt to complain to anyone for an extended period of time she would have a VERY hard decision about whether to prosecute or not, although really it would be her bosses call with her input, and that she would not call it a baf verdict if it came back not guilty.

Did this girl know that she was on the tape before she saw it, or did she assume that because she said no she wasn't on the tape? Personally, I would think that if someone was filming something, and they asked my consent to show me in the film, and I clearly said no, on tape, they would not use my image. Maybe I am just old fashioned.

Believe it or not, courts actually allow people to argue that they did not know about something before they start running a clock on how long they have to respond to it. You just assume that she knew she was on tape, with no evidence to the contrary. I don't think that even GGW tried to run that one through the court, because I am sure that they film hundreds of hours of video for every disc they sell.

In fact, I know they do, because the sleazeball that runs GGW didn't even know he had someone in his archives from a few years back, and offered her a few thousand to make a video.

 

[Ravi]

I'm unclear as to what anyone believes this lady should have done to prevent (or try to) the filming and broadcasting of her sexual assault?

Stay home in a burka.

 

[editec]

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

I agree.

If we are being given the whole story this looks like a miscarriage of justice to me, too.

 

[jgbkab]

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.

 

[rikules]

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

I agree.

this IS a bad verdict.

in fact...it very much reminds me of the bad verdicts made by so many conservatives...;

"if you didn't want to be raped you should NOT have worn such sexy clothing!"
"if you did NOT want to be raped you should NOT have gone out of the house!"
"we conservative christian men can NOT be held accountable for our actions as long as YOU refuse to wear burkas"

 

[ConHog]

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

I agree.

this IS a bad verdict.

in fact...it very much reminds me of the bad verdicts made by so many conservatives...;

"if you didn't want to be raped you should NOT have worn such sexy clothing!"
"if you did NOT want to be raped you should NOT have gone out of the house!"
"we conservative christian men can NOT be held accountable for our actions as long as YOU refuse to wear burkas"

You sir are an idiot. This case had nothing to do with either rape nor Christians. I for one am tired of childish behavior in serious threads and therefor request that you fuck off.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm unclear as to what anyone believes this lady should have done to prevent (or try to) the filming and broadcasting of her sexual assault?

Stay home in a burka.

That seems to be the essence of it. I thought we got over the "She was asking for it" defense a long time ago.

 

[ConHog]

So, the fact that she actually said no to the request, and reacted negatively after the event, and that this is all on tape, proves she consented.

Wow, I hope your ADA never works in sex crimes because a lot of people will walk free. Apparently implied consent of being dressed provocatively, dancing, or being in the wrong place, makes sexual assault justifiable. I will be sure to reference that opinion if I ever decide to rape someone.

I guess those people who think you want to roll laws back to the 50s are right.

Actually, my wife does handle rape cases, although they are VERY rare around here. And, although that is slightly different because of statute of limitations and such. She says that yes, if a victim came forward years after the "rape" and the incident was on tape with her saying "oh no oh no" but she knew who did it but made no attempt to complain to anyone for an extended period of time she would have a VERY hard decision about whether to prosecute or not, although really it would be her bosses call with her input, and that she would not call it a baf verdict if it came back not guilty.

Did this girl know that she was on the tape before she saw it, or did she assume that because she said no she wasn't on the tape? Personally, I would think that if someone was filming something, and they asked my consent to show me in the film, and I clearly said no, on tape, they would not use my image. Maybe I am just old fashioned.

Believe it or not, courts actually allow people to argue that they did not know about something before they start running a clock on how long they have to respond to it. You just assume that she knew she was on tape, with no evidence to the contrary. I don't think that even GGW tried to run that one through the court, because I am sure that they film hundreds of hours of video for every disc they sell.

In fact, I know they do, because the sleazeball that runs GGW didn't even know he had someone in his archives from a few years back, and offered her a few thousand to make a video.

As was pointed out, the girl was aware that she might end up on video by being in that establishment while cameras were rolling. She willfully went in anyway. That is implied consent, or at the very least acknowledging that you know it is possible that you might end up on the video. If she didn't know then that they wanted her boobs on camera, then who was she saying no to? Oh that's right, the cameraman so once she realized someone lifted her top in front of the camera, why didn't she go to the producer right away and say she didn't consent to that? There's no doubt she knew then that it was videod. So that argument is OUT.

 

[ConHog]

I'm unclear as to what anyone believes this lady should have done to prevent (or try to) the filming and broadcasting of her sexual assault?

Stay home in a burka.

That seems to be the essence of it. I thought we got over the "She was asking for it" defense a long time ago.

QW don't devolve into of those morons in this thread, you know damned well that no one is saying such a thing.

 

[boedicca]

Does GGW have women sign releases to use them in films?

 

[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.

 

[Immanuel]

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.

The woman's lawyers had asked for about $5 million, including the $1.5 million they estimated the company has made on the video in question, called "Girls Gone Wild Sorority Orgy."

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

If she had been at the bar and someone slipped her a Mickey and then raped her, was she asking for it because she was at the bar?

Immie

 

[syrenn]

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.

Did she charge that person with sexual assault then or now?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Actually, my wife does handle rape cases, although they are VERY rare around here. And, although that is slightly different because of statute of limitations and such. She says that yes, if a victim came forward years after the "rape" and the incident was on tape with her saying "oh no oh no" but she knew who did it but made no attempt to complain to anyone for an extended period of time she would have a VERY hard decision about whether to prosecute or not, although really it would be her bosses call with her input, and that she would not call it a baf verdict if it came back not guilty.

Did this girl know that she was on the tape before she saw it, or did she assume that because she said no she wasn't on the tape? Personally, I would think that if someone was filming something, and they asked my consent to show me in the film, and I clearly said no, on tape, they would not use my image. Maybe I am just old fashioned.

Believe it or not, courts actually allow people to argue that they did not know about something before they start running a clock on how long they have to respond to it. You just assume that she knew she was on tape, with no evidence to the contrary. I don't think that even GGW tried to run that one through the court, because I am sure that they film hundreds of hours of video for every disc they sell.

In fact, I know they do, because the sleazeball that runs GGW didn't even know he had someone in his archives from a few years back, and offered her a few thousand to make a video.

As was pointed out, the girl was aware that she might end up on video by being in that establishment while cameras were rolling. She willfully went in anyway. That is implied consent, or at the very least acknowledging that you know it is possible that you might end up on the video. If she didn't know then that they wanted her boobs on camera, then who was she saying no to? Oh that's right, the cameraman so once she realized someone lifted her top in front of the camera, why didn't she go to the producer right away and say she didn't consent to that? There's no doubt she knew then that it was videod. So that argument is OUT.

Bullshit.

Implied consent does not trump a clear no, when she said no to the request, and then reacted negatively afterward, that settles it in my mind. If she was trying to argue that she did not want to be in the video at all, your argument might make sense, but she did not argue that, she argued that she did not give permission for the nudity.

Do you want to try and twist the fact that she is on tape saying no to that specific request and say that means she actually wanted it? If so, you just negated every rape conviction in history.