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

[moonchylde.livejournal.com]

no means no.. unless the person listening thinks otherwise, then its 'implied consent'?

doesn't work for other situations either.

no means no means NO.

you haven't seen the video, you quote a guy that ALSO did not state he saw the video, AND ignore her comment later in the article:

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."



poor judgment call on your part and the jury's. :(

[oportet.livejournal.com]

Are you saying a juror did not see the video?

[moonchylde.livejournal.com]

no, I'm saying the articles quoted did not say the jury members saw the video. while it is nice that you assume they did, the fact that they specifically did NOT say that the jury saw the video (just mention 'evidence' was heard) does mean you cannot jump to the conclusion they did.