Scary story for those of you with young adult daughters

Parent Cafe
21

<p>Sometimes decisions like this are reversed if the decision is appealed. One judge on a Wisconsin bench ruled that women can’t be raped if they’re wearing blue jeans. That jeans are so hard to take off, it means that a woman consents!!! What a lunatic. He was eventually removed from the bench.</p>

<p>Another judge ruled that wearing shorts meant that a woman was announcing she was available. Decision also overturned.</p>

<p>In the case of women’s rights and the law we’re very much two steps forward, one step back.</p>

22

<p>I am saddened by the whole Girls Gone Wild thing, but I think some people here are overlooking the fact that the plaintiff in this case sued the tv show that filmed and broadcast the assault, NOT the person who committed the assault.</p>

23

<p>^ They still profited off the assault. </p>

<p>I haven’t found a story where it said what actually happened to the woman who pulled the top down. For all we know, she did try to press charges against or sue this woman and the cops told her that there wasn’t a case. I would be interested if anyone could find out what happened to the other person.</p>

24

<p>^Is that illegal? Profiting, that is.</p>

25

<p>Amesie, I don’t think anyone is overlooking that fact, I think the greater harm done to the woman was the taping and selling of something that clearly she said no to.</p>

26

<p>/Speculation</p>

<p>I think the MO jury reasoned that the young lady in question voluntarily attended a party hosted by GGW. Probably, GGW disclosed that any and all actions within the physical confines of the party would be filmed. Most, if not all, attendants must have been aware there would be cameras at the party. Of course, this does not justify what happened to this young woman; however, it would be unreasonable for GGW to edit their videos any time attendants to parties where GGW has a right to film demand it, even if the party attendant does not consent.</p>

<p>/End-speculation</p>

<p>GGW profiting from this situation is unethical, but not illegal. The crime was committed by the young lady’s “friend.”</p>

27

<p>

</p>

<p>That’s what I was thinking, too.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>This wasn’t a criminal case; it was a lawsuit for damages. The criminal act was perpetrated by the “friend,” who could probably have been charged with assault should the young woman have cared to press charges, but the lasting damages were almost certainly caused by the producers.</p>

28

<p>I do not think the lasting damages were caused by the producers. Same kind of damage would develop if a dozen party attendees had their camera phones out, filmed the incident, then posted it online. A similar situation would play out if the young lady would have been in a public area where a random person with a camera happened to film a similar incident and then that random person with the camera shared the video with friends. It could be argued that the public coverage of the story is equally, if not more, harmful to this young lady.</p>

29

<p>Juries do not decide legal issues; they decide facts, based on the instructions given to them by the court. What they decide has no precedent for other, future cases.</p>

<p>Since I didn’t read the article and am unfamiliar with this case, I don’t know what facts led the jury to decide for the defendants. It could have been an issue with the plaintiff’s credibility – perhaps they simply didn’t believe her testimony. That’s their job - to decide which witnesses they believe.</p>

<p>In a civil action, the plaintiff bears the burden of proof, by a preponderence of evidence – so it could also be that the jury simply felt that the plaintiff failed on that end.</p>

<p>The jury did not and could not have decided that “consent is not required” – that’s a legal determination – they would have followed the law, as explained by the judge. But what they could have done is rejected the woman’s claim that she didn’t give consent to the filming. </p>

<p>One part that stands out for me is that she knew the cameras were rolling – and whether she wanted to disrobe or not – she apparently didn’t register any sort of complaint at the time to to filmmakers. So that tends to indicate more of a situation of changing her mind later on. </p>

<p>I’d point out that factually, “consent” is a tricky issue because you can’t read minds - you can only rely on testimony of the person-- so it is going to often come down to credibility. That is true in rape cases as well – if the woman says she didn’t consent, and the guy says she did – it’s always going to turn on which is more believable. A lot of stuff can be introduced by opposing counsel to impeach a witness’ credibility – so without being there, again, we can’t really know what happened in this case. </p>

<p>That doesn’t exclude the very real possibility of an unfair verdict just because the luck of the draw drew a slate of unsympathetic jurors --but there’s not much that can be done about that unless there is some clear legal error, such as a bad legal instruction or improperly admitted or excluded evidence, that the plaintiff’s attorney could point to on appeal. An appeals court will not overturn the factual determinations of a jury, absent evidence of jury misconduct.</p>

<p>I’d also add that the jury probably saw the video itself and that might have heavily influenced their view of the consent issue. For example, if he girl was laughing and smiling and kept on dancing after the shirt was pulled down --that would have been very different than if she had started crying and immediately covered up and turned away from the camera. Since I didn’t see the film, I don’t know which it was – but the jury was in a different position.</p>

30

<p>while i hate the ggw concept… i have a problem with her claim of damages… and as calmom said, even if she is heard to say no during the video…how did she react once it happened, did she grab her shirt and pull it back up and immediately leave, or did she laugh and continue to remain while knowing they were filming? doesnt justify the actions of her friends in any way but what did the jury see when they viewed the video. I just cant see that she was harmed to the point of 5M dollars… still doesnt excuse the friend or ggw and her friend should be held accountable</p>

31

<p>But she didn’t sue her friend, and there’s a statute of limitations to bring a lawsuit for a claimed assault – typically a year (it varies from one state to another). She didn’t sue GGW for 4 years – the statute of limitations wouldn’t apply to them because they were continuing to distribute and profit from the video, and she claimed to have been unaware of it until 2008. But again… the circumstances obviously weren’t convincing to the jury.</p>

32

<p>Excellent post calmom. I just wanted to correct a few things.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>She did though, as soon as her shirt was pulled down she started saying no, it’s right on the film.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Yes, the plaintiff was laughing and dancing for the camera up until the time her shirt was pulled down. The jury forman said in a statement that she knew what she was doing. The jury seemed to think she gave consent by agreeing to be filmed.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I think that is what happened. I think a different jury would have rendered a different verdict. She clearly did not consent to being filmed with her top pulled down.</p>

33

<p>

</p>

<p>Oh, come on. It’s unreasonble for GGW to edit their videos when a woman says, “No, no, no.” I don’t buy that at all.</p>

34

<p>Pea, have you seen the actual video clip?</p>

35

<p>The lesson I would like my young adult daughter to take from this is not to party in a bar where GWW is filming.</p>

36

<p>

</p>

<p>No. I got my information from the original article.</p>

37

<p>“Don’t dance and strip in public”</p>

<p>NOW you tell me!!</p>

38

<p>This is sick. Not only should she be awarded damages, but it should be illegal for the company to sell a porn video that includes a sexual assault. Unless we, as a country, want to say that it’s okay to go around pulling people’s clothing off and filming it, then selling it as porn with mass-market television commercials.</p>

39

<p>This is a troubling situation, not only for things like GGW, but for anyone. It makes no sense that one has to get permission to show pictures of people but when it comes to Youtube it seems as though anything goes. Those who post those videos on the internet do not get everyone’s permission to do this.</p>

<p>You can get filmed at all kinds of awkward moments. Maybe you look funny dancing. If you are partying too hard. Someone can be recording you with their danged cell phone with all the sound effects too. In the bathroom, dressing room, sleeping on a bus or train. You really are ot safe anywhere these days.</p>

40

<p>I thought it was illegal to use someone’s image for monetary gain without the person’s express written consent. I know that photographers cannot use a person’s image for sales or advertising purposes unless that person (or their legal guardian) has signed a release. Neither can an artist use a person’s image or photographic reference for a work of art based on their recognizable image, if that piece of art has been sold or distributed for profit. I remember reading about a couple who found out that the Sears Portrait Studio was using a photograph of their toddler for advertising purposes, and who sued because they had never given Sears consent to use their child’s image. They had, of course, hired the studio to take pictures of their child, like millions of people do every year, but they only intended those photos to be used by themselves, to distribute as they saw fit. They won the suit. Sears needed to have gotten a legal release/consent from the child’s parents. I don’t understand how the producers of GGW were able to make an end run around this law.</p>

<p>I wonder if this girl signed any kind of consent form, which allowed the GGW producers to use her image.</p>