<p>I agree with JHS. From what I saw in that video, that was not consent. I don’t care how drunk/flirty the girl was. I suspect that at that point in time, she just kept dancing/smiling after being grabbed – leading the jury to assume it was consensual (if she didn’t continue dancing/smiling afterward, the footage likely wouldn’t have even made the cut! GGW isn’t going to sell footage of women being touched if they showed any hint of finding it all really offensive).</p>
<p>However, asking for $5 million is a big outrageous, too – not to mention the fact that she didn’t even bother pressing charges until the video was released. If she was so concerned over the sexual nature of the crime, why did she wait (with no indication that she was even going to press charges otherwise)? It isn’t like this is a rape case and some sort of shame/fear was involved regarding pressing charges. It seems like she only felt a sort of “gambler’s remorse” once the footage was made more easily accessible than she may have anticipated. While I agree that “no means no,” she was not under ANY sort of duress, and I feel a bit torn over this issue.</p>
<p>Personally, I think she should have won – but not for $5 million (again though I’d want to see the entire video). I don’t necessarily think she gave implied consent to have herself exposed, no matter how foolish she may have been for basically whacking a beehive with a stick and then getting upset for getting stung.</p>
<p>I’m frankly not surprised that she lost, but I do think both sides of the case can be argued.</p>