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

[oportet.livejournal.com]

12 people only took an hour and a half to decide against her. Like I've said to plenty of others on here, there is more to it than the biased article presents.

It doesn't make sense to take the accusers word 100%of the time, as it also doesn't make sense to take the word of the accused 100% of the time.

It is best to look at the facts, and if you can't look at the facts, at least look to a group of people that looked at the facts.

[honeysuckle-raw.livejournal.com]

That wasn't a response to the article, it was a response to comments.