Consent isn't needed at all for Girl Gone Wild

Jezebel wrote:

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.

"I am stunned that this company can get away with this," said Jane Doe after the ruling. "Justice has not been served. I just don't understand. I gave no consent." When she heard what O'Brien had said, she tearfully added, "I was having fun until my top was pulled off. And now this thing is out there for the world to see forever."

So let this be a lesson to us all. "Consent" is a flexible thing - at least in the eyes of the St. Louis courts. No means yes, and assault means it's okay to roll the cameras. If there were ever a time to get righteously angry, it's now.

Update: The River Front Times blog has nominated Jane Doe for their "Ass Clown of the Week" award, which is given to the person "whose words or actions you thought brought them the most shame this week."

Source.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I love how the asshole blogger put her in the running with a guy who made a racist comment and another guy who raped his students. Yeah, apples and apples, huh?

Also, what if you just happened to walk by the camera in a GGW film? Are you fair game to have your top ripped off, too? Huh, maybe they should have held her down and ground their dicks against her body -- or even raped her -- since she clearly wanted that, too.

Girls Gone Wild is fucking sick... not too surprising, since its creator assaulted a woman interviewer who was doing an interview with him.

I sense an appeal on this one, and I'm really surprised that her attorney didn't move to have the verdict set aside.

Consent to act A =/= consent to act B. If I consent to be punched in the face in a boxing match, that does not mean that I also consent to being kicked in the ribs.

Likewise, consent to be filmed while dancing does not mean consent to have someone yank down an article of clothing. Especially when you can hear her saying no on the freakin' tape.

Well, of course not. Obviously if you're on a Girls Gone Wild video, you've forfeited all respect, personal boundaries, and legal rights. The only people on a Girls Gone Wild video would be flagrant, licentious whores who should know better than to expect any semblance of dignity or any compassion when they are wronged. They deserved it, of course. It's just what happens when you show your true colors and prove young, attractive women are nothing but vapid exhibitionist airheads. No harm, no foul. She can try all she wants to get justice for that guy sexually assaulting her, but he's a guy and she was in a softcore video. She should just know better, that slut.

*sees how long she can go without murder after reading this*

Spotty wrote:

Consent to act A =/= consent to act B. If I consent to be punched in
the face in a boxing match, that does not mean that I also consent to
being kicked in the ribs.

It does if it's kick boxing.

Also, if I were to kick you in the ribs in the middle of a boxing match, I'd be DQ'ed and probably would have my boxing license suspended for a long period of time, but I doubt you'd have any legal recourse against me.

Also also, wouldn't she have more of a case against the nobody who pulled her shirt down, instead of the guy unwittingly filming it?

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Spotty wrote:

Consent to act A =/= consent to act B. If I consent to be punched in
the face in a boxing match, that does not mean that I also consent to
being kicked in the ribs.

Also, if I were to kick you in the ribs in the middle of a boxing match, I'd be DQ'ed and probably would have my boxing license suspended for a long period of time, but I doubt you'd have any legal recourse against me.

Actually I would have a tort action because I can only consent to conduct that is within the "rules of the game", even if I knew that you were a habitual violator of those rules.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Also also, wouldn't she have more of a case against the nobody who pulled her shirt down, instead of the guy unwittingly filming it?

1) She can go after both of them, but considering that the woman who pulled her shirt down is likely unknown and unidentifiable she's going after the "known" defendant.
2) He wasn't "unwittingly filming it". And there is sufficient evidence that he was filming to get shots just like that - the audio indicates that she refused multiple times to flash the camera.

Spotts1701 wrote:

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Spotty wrote:

Consent to act A =/= consent to act B. If I consent to be punched in
the face in a boxing match, that does not mean that I also consent to
being kicked in the ribs.

Also, if I were to kick you in the ribs in the middle of a boxing match, I'd be DQ'ed and probably would have my boxing license suspended for a long period of time, but I doubt you'd have any legal recourse against me.

Actually I would have a tort action because I can only consent to conduct that is within the "rules of the game", even if I knew that you were a habitual violator of those rules.

So you're saying that if Ray Lewis hits Ben Roethlisberger well after Ben has thrown the pass, thereby breaking the rules and receiving a 15 yard penalty for roughing the passer, Ben can sue him?

You lawyers ruin everything. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Spotty wrote:

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Also also, wouldn't she have more of a case against the nobody who pulled her shirt down, instead of the guy unwittingly filming it?

1) She can go after both of them, but considering that the guy who pulled her shirt down is likely unknown and unidentifiable she's going after the "known" defendant.
2) He wasn't "unwittingly filming it". And there is sufficient evidence that he was filming to get shots just like that - the audio indicates that she refused multiple times to flash the camera.

You see, these are things I don't know because I haven't seen the video. I think I need to do some research before I continue in this thread. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Didn't the Girls Gone Wild founder/CEO/archon of fucktardry go to jail of something recently? Hang on, let me look it up.

*Wikis*

Nope, he pled guilty to a lesser charge and got a fine, but no additional jail time. Ah well.

Back in ancient times, all parties involved with Girls Gone Wild would be pelted with rocks for shaming this woman. Glade to see that the iron age had higher morals than the people on that jury.

XLT-100852.0 wrote:

Back in ancient times, all parties involved with Girls Gone Wild would be pelted with rocks for shaming this woman. Glade to see that the iron age had higher morals than the people on that jury.

If they didn't pelt her with rocks instead.

Lady Anne wrote:

If they didn't pelt her with rocks instead.

Yes, because obviously everyone before 1970 had no value for a women's dignity.

He pled guilty. There was no jury.

They're talking about this case, not the other case that you brought up, where he did plead guilty.

XLT-100852.0 wrote:

Lady Anne wrote:

If they didn't pelt her with rocks instead.

Yes, because obviously everyone before 1970 had no value for a women's dignity.

What are you talking about?

I'm not claiming that rights are equal now but historically women generally had it far worse than they do today.

God Dammit, I just posted something about his.

XLT-100852.0 wrote:

Lady Anne wrote:

If they didn't pelt her with rocks instead.

Yes, because obviously everyone before 1970 had no value for a women's dignity.

What does 1970 have to do with the iron age?

Lady Anne wrote:

XLT-100852.0 wrote:

Lady Anne wrote:

If they didn't pelt her with rocks instead.

Yes, because obviously everyone before 1970 had no value for a women's dignity.

What does 1970 have to do with the iron age?

I imagine it has something to do with modern feminism spawning in the 1970s. I mean, yes, you had your suffragettes and Susan B Anthonies long before that. But it kind of quieted down for a while and then out of the hippies came a bunch of these retards comparing the Miss USA Pageant contestants to cattle or something.

And Xtreme Lettuce and Tomato sammich here is implying before that little movement, women were cattle.

Lady Anne wrote:

XLT-100852.0 wrote:

Lady Anne wrote:

If they didn't pelt her with rocks instead.

Yes, because obviously everyone before 1970 had no value for a women's dignity.

What does 1970 have to do with the iron age?

It was when Metal was starting to become a recognised genre of music? [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

So you're saying that if Ray Lewis hits Ben Roethlisberger well after Ben has thrown the pass, thereby breaking the rules and receiving a 15 yard penalty for roughing the passer, Ben can sue him?

Don't be (more) dense (than usual), Mikey.

And as I said over at rage_free: I'm not sure which annoys me more, the verdict itself, or the fact that that asshole Joe Francis got another win in court?