<p>The jist of this story is that a woman had her top yanked down by someone else and filmed for Girls Gone Wild and she kept saying “no, no” and never gave consent. The jury decided it was her fault and ruled that she gave consent simply by being in a bar. </p>
<p>I am not a parent and this even scares me because I have a 20-something sister who loves to frequent bars with a wild crowd. However, she would NEVER expose her top for a camera, although it wouldn’t surprise me if one of her friends pulled her top down. It would be heartbreaking for anyone’s reputation to be damaged simply because of some stupid “friends” and a greedy film producer. </p>
<p>This story just makes me incredibly angry as a young woman. Women are still treated almost like property in America. </p>
<p>Just wanted to see what parents had to say about this story. Plus, it goes as a warning to anyone with college daughters- if you are assaulted and cameras are rolling then it’s OK as long as you were dancing with the crowd that assaulted you :/.</p>
<p>One doesn’t need daughters or to even be female to be appalled by this story. I hope she appeals and wins a big judgment. </p>
<p>"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.</p>
<p>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."</p>
<p>The reasoning of the jury seems to hinge on the idea that the Girls Gone Wild crew was there filming and their reputation is well known.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you were in a bar and Girls Gone Wild was there filming would you stay? I wouldn’t because I wouldn’t want my face on one of there videos. This girl apparently wanted her face in the video, (just not other parts of her anatomy).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The plaintiff sued for five million dollars. I don’t like the jury’s decision but she’s crazy to think her damages amount to that kind of money. I would like to have seen the jury side with her and award her damages of around $50. She might have had a case if she sued her friend for assault, (the one who yanked down her shirt).</p>
<p>Pea it doesn’t matter the reputation of someone or some company. If you DIDN’T give consent, then you didn’t give consent and they had no right to publish it. End of story IMO. You don’t get to profit off assault. </p>
<p>But I agree that she should go after the person who yanked her top down as well.</p>
<p>She did give consent to be filmed, she didn’t mind her face being filmed, she just wanted to remain fully clothed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Now that’s interesting. If this rises to the level of assault then I think you’re right, I don’t think they can profit from it. Maybe that is the tact that the lawyer should have taken, he focused instead on the issue of consent. I wish the jury had seen this differently. I think the friend involved here is a colossal *****.</p>
<p>This story can serve as a teaching moment for all of us. With the internet and the ease of making and distributing videos we all need to be extra careful. Any email, any racy photos, can find their way into distribution.</p>
<p>I also don’t understand why the plaintiff didn’t mind having her face on a Girls Gone Wild video. That’s not smart, if that came to the attention of a potential employer I think it could be the difference between her getting a job or not.</p>
<p>How disgusting! Is it not law that you must sign a model release before someone can broadcast pictures or film of you, especially for profit? I don’t get how GGW gets around that? But what’s the take away here? Don’t dance and strip in public especially when GGW is filming in a bar. Girls have to protect themselves because the law will not always protect you, unfortunately. Sounds like common sense. What a harsh way to learn that lesson.</p>
<p>I hope some of the lawyers will offer their input, but I do seem to recall reading somewhere that so long as the subject is in public, the media can take pictures or film. So I think that a TV show could film and broadcast an assault, as offensive as that would be (and probably the offensiveness is what keeps most media from actually doing it). In fact it seems that what happened here was an assault, if the young woman’s shirt was pulled off without her consent.</p>
<p>I’m not a lawyer but I think an argument could be made that the assault took place because GGW was filming. Clearly the “friend” wouldn’t have pulled down the plaintiff’s shirt unless GGW wasn’t encouraging girls to take off their clothes, which they do.</p>
<p>From the original article</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think the husband should have asked his friend why he was watching such smut and then he should have asked him why he felt the need to call him and make such a rude comment. It sounds like the plantiff and her husband have trouble choosing friends.</p>
<p>Besides, honestly there’s nothing wrong with GGW-type videos as long as everyone in it is legal and gives consent. Hell, my dad and his brothers got their father a GGW video for his 70th birthday (which is annoying because we still get ads for them, but whatever). The issue is that the woman didn’t give consent.</p>
<p>But there isn’t anything you can do about it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think these videos take advantage of young women. Do the women depicted get paid? The people making the videos make a lot of money but I bet the women don’t see any of it. You said yourself earlier</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s right, or that some day they might have kids who will see the video. 20 years after they consented to something like this the video will still be circulating, a reminder of what they did when they were young and maybe drunk and not exercising the best judgment.</p>
<p>Right. I don’t mind my face being filmed or photographed either. How does that get translated into, “go ahead and film my breasts while a third party exposes me without my consent?”</p>
<p>I’ve only ever seen the commericals for these videos, but it appears that the girls themselves are lifting their tops. It’s entirely reasonable to assue that if one declines to life their top, they will not be filmed topless. </p>
<p>This verdict is far too close to when sexual assault is excused by what the victim was wearing.</p>
<p>You wouldn’t mind your face being filmed for porn smut? You’d dance for a camera that was filming pronographic filth? I doubt you would do that, and neither would I.</p>
<p>Don’t get me wrong, I agree, the plaintiff should reasonably have expected that her shirt would not be pulled down. I think she could have pressed assault charges against her “friend”. If she had done that and they had stuck then I don’t think GWW would have used the footage because they can’t profit from a crime they helped instigate.</p>
<p>But I do not understand why she wanted to be filmed for GWW. It’s stupid. A decision like that could come back to haunt you.</p>
<p>Even porn stars are allowed to determine what will or will not be filmed and what will or will not happen to them. </p>
<p>This verdict is creepily like rape verdicts where the woman “had it coming” or “wouldn’t have been in that area/wearing that if she didn’t want to be raped.” There’s a big difference between jumping up and down for the camera versus having your private parts forcibly exposed.</p>