WTF?????

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

20 yo woman is at a club and convinced to dance in front of a Girls Gone Wild camera (she knew she was being filmed and was dancing specifically for the camera) but consistently refused to show her breasts (this can be heard in the audio).

Then while dancing someone reached around from behind her and pulled her top down.

She never signs a consent form for the pictures to be published and yet published they are.

Flash forward 4 years and she's married with a kid and her husband gets a call from a friend telling him that his wife's breasts are famous.

Open and shut defamation of character lawsuit right?

Apparently not...

http://jezebel.com/5594774/jury-decides-consent-is-not-required-for-girls-gone-wild



Can someone find the idiots who were on this jury and hit them upside the head with a clue stick?


When I first saw the article linked I figured it was a case where she intentionally exposed herself in the club but did not realize she was being filmed, in which her case would be much weaker and I could at least see an argument for her losing.

With the facts the way they are forget her winning the lawsuit I can't see how the Girls Gone Wild Camera Crew are not facing sexual assault charges right now (at a minimum they are guilty of being an accessory after the fact).

Shit like this really destroys my faith in humanity.

Comments

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

Yes, and I had really thought we have grown past that crap.

[futurebird.livejournal.com]

Exactly. Glad to see a post about this.

[merig00.livejournal.com]

So uhm does it mean that if the case is not appealed the GGW is allowed to release video without consent form?

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

The video has already been released.

She only learned of it when a friend of her husband watched the video and recognized her.

Given that this was a civil lawsuit and she was suing fro damages it is unlikely that there ever was a question of their attempting to recall existing copies or ceasing production of it.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

/is also disgusted at the outcome of this
//Joe Francis should be fed into a wood chipper ala Fargo

[green-man-2010.livejournal.com]

Agreed.

[sgiffy.livejournal.com]

Now if only people would stop buying these videos or patronizing bars that allow them to film.

I got no problem with consensual porn, but that is not what this is.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

I think it's more important that we teach young women to respect themselves so that they don't act in such a manner.

But stopping buying the videos would work too. Though that'd just be a lesser good.

[404.livejournal.com]

Pics or it didn't happen.

[ironhawke.livejournal.com]

Sactly, tits or GTFO

[spaz-own-joo.livejournal.com]

Rasilio's OP was fucking exemplary. This could have been a post where trolls from both sides of the aisle came together to agree that douchey douches are douchey. And instead, I find this douchiness.

[anadinboy.livejournal.com]

anti-social ho married to a small minded thug by the sound of it

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

You really are the worst troll ever. Look at Steve Potocin - he's like a friggin' pro. You're just some sad screaming eight year old.

[oportet.livejournal.com]

Maybe they just didn't believe her - I don't.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

When the audio has her clearly saying No when asked to show em and the production company is unable to produce a signed release form from her there isn't much room to disbelieve.

[oportet.livejournal.com]

Any proof that someone from GGW pulled her shirt down? What was her reaction when it dropped? Did she cover up with her hands and run away, or did she keep on dancing and shaking?

I don't have the answers to that, but I'm sure the jurors did.

If she didn't know what Girls Gone Wild plus a video camera might lead to, that sucks for her. It may be wrong, but it isn't 5 million dollars wrong.

[xforge.livejournal.com]

I read elsewhere that it was one of her drunk friends that did the pulling.

[verytwistedmind.livejournal.com]

I know a little about the Girls Gone Wild business model. Almost everything they do skates on the edge of legality.
1) they automatical send you additional product (been many lawsuits for many companies on this process).
2) they used to use third party additional offers, using the same credit card with you suppling it(this is no illegal via internet sales but not phone)
3) they frequently have issues with minors being filmed (not published but someone has that kiddie porn on tape somewhere.)

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

I wonder if there's any law on waiver forms signed while intoxicated. I'd guess that a lot of their business model would dry up if they had to get sober waivers.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Yeah, pretty stupid jury decision there. Not really surprised though.

[spaz-own-joo.livejournal.com]

Oh my god man this is goddamned infuriating.
Thank you for bringing publicity to this story.

IMPOTENT RAEG i have some

[rogerdr.livejournal.com]

While, if the producers and employees of GGW weren't actually the ones who pulled up her shirt they should be given the same right to film it as anyone there, that doesn't make publishing it any less assholic.

the blame is with he or she who takes an action

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

That sounds very bad.

I would like more information:

who pulled her top down? and I'd like to hear the audio.

If anyone from GGW pulled her top down, throw their asses in jail. If someone else, not affiliated did so, GGW isn't accountable, are they? [the person who removed her clothing against her will is responsible] And if they keep filming and she doesn't cover herself after someone did something to her she didn't want to happen, I'm confused.

I hope not to incur feminist wrath here, but, if non-GGW is responsible for her top being down, all they are responsible for is filming; and she is responsible for her drinking and dancing.

Re: the blame is with he or she who takes an action

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

all that said, fuck Joe Francis
this isn't a defense of GGW
but despite my intense dislike of Wal-Mart, I won't say it's responsible for the holocaust

blame GGW for what they've done--this may be such a thing--or this may not

i lack critical information to make that decision
[that info is the audio/video and the identity of the person who did the top removing]

[ironhawke.livejournal.com]

I'm having a tough time parsing this issue in a rational manner. There's a number of issues here:

1: Unless someone wants to find the video, look at the clips and identify the woman involved, there's very little we can do to assess what was going on at the time. The jury likely ended up watching the clip in question, which gives them perspective that we lack.

2: GGW is obviously a smut peddler, and as much of a fan that I am of "smut" there are concerning legal lines that need to be addressed. From what I know, a lot of the smaller "Man on the Street/Woman picked up off the street" videos often pay a girl a piddling amount of money and either get her consent via video, or have her sign a document releasing her rights to the events. I'm sure GGW does the same thing, but what's worrisome is that they have no signed consent form to produce, which forces to jury to define what is "consent" as compared to the situation at hand.

3: The link provided is obviously a single-minded site. I question the black and white version of events as described in the article.

4: While the events that happened probably got out of hand for the woman in question, I have to wonder what *actually* happened that night. Is this an event of "Oh, I really didn't want to sleep with him, so I'm gonna tell everyone it was rape?" Or is this legitimate? Until we have access to better information, we can't answer those questions.

Lastly, people are getting heated up over this, and (like every other fucking OP about sex issues) are dividing up into the "you're a rapist in disguise" camp and the "she's got some part in this too" camp. Chill. The. Fuck. Out. All of you.

[ironhawke.livejournal.com]

Eh, in spite of my commentary (read: inflammatory) elsewhere in this thread, I do have this to say:

Assuming that the case is as simple as is described, this is definitely a miscarriage of justice. GGW and Joe Francis are both entities worthy of contempt and ultimately should be shunned as a whole. GGW has a history of unlawful activity, actively getting girls to drink to excess and do things they normally wouldn't consent to.

The girl in question was being stupid, there's no doubt to this. For this case to have been dismiss means that there has to be SOME part of this that she was either encouraging or at the very least, giving only a minor effort at resisting. However, GGW has some serious egg on it's face, nothing new, but at the very least they needed to get consent forms from anyone being filmed. From a business standpoint, they were being stupid and IMO, (again, if the details reported were as they say) they should be charged in a civil case and sued.

The question begs though. Isn't GGW an example of the porn industry as a whole? There are many woman and men out there that say (and probably, to an extent, fairly) that porn denigrates women, objectifies them, and generates a society in which sexuality is treated in a way that has NOTHING to do with reality. For me I don't necessarily see things this way. Porn is here to stay, and we need to accept that while people do things that they may regret later, they are consenting adults and they need to live with their actions. If you don't want to be in a porn, then DON'T BE. Self empowerment and the ability to choose your own consequences are essential for a mature society.

Sadly, there are no winners here. GGW may have escaped justice this time, but I hope it shows a lesson to younger women. Don't be stupid, don't get out of control, and ultimately, make sure you can keep your damned clothes on in public.

[dreadfulpenny81.livejournal.com]

A couple of things come to my mind when I'm reading this article:
1. Was her top pulled down by someone on the GGW crew or some random jerk in the bar? If so, why did she never file sexual assault charges? If it was someone whom she went to the bar with, whom she later left the bar with that night, then that could explain why a) no charges were filed and b) why GGW thought it would be okay to publish her image.
2. Did the jury get to see the tape or was it implied that she was playing to the camera, as the foreman says? If the former, then I can understand the jury deciding the way they did.
3. How did it destroy her reputation when she was completely oblivious for four years about the existence of her video on a GGW tape? I can understand her reputation being damaged now that people in her surrounding area know about the lawsuit, but I don't see how she could plausibly sue for a damaged reputation with no knowledge of what would be causing the damage.

The juries decision is disgusting and unfortunately may set a bad precedent. Next thing you know, criminals will try and use this as justification for raping women (the "She shouldn't have looked so damn hot" defense). But this should also be a lesson to young women - don't go to a bar where a GGW crew is filming. Don't put yourself into a situation like that if you can avoid it.