<p>Well by that I mean it falls outside the scope of your typical GGW video segment. Usually your average segment has smiling/laughing girls going topless and bantering with the cameramen. From what I understand, anyway.</p>
<p>The guy commentator makes me sick “Oh I was assulted! NOT!” </p>
<p>I can’t believe those people. They make me sick. “She wanted it because she wore a tank top, she was jiggling her boobs.” </p>
<p>My sister has DDs. She is gorgeous and she uses that to her advantage. She flirts her way to free drinks and stuff. That does NOT mean that she has any more right to privacy than me, a girl with a small chest who wears T-Shirts. And it is grotesque that anyone would suggest otherwise. The cameraman (presumably) pulled down her shirt against her will. That is WRONG on many levels. And she was not “asking for it” or anything along those lines. She was a young woman who wanted to have fun and it went to far, despite her saying “no”. No means no, now and forever.</p>
<p>I had no idea that the cameraman pulled her top down. If only she had slapped him and called the police.</p>
<p>^ I wish we could see the rest of the clip. She might have been too in shock to do anything. </p>
<p>Some people just freeze.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That was an allegation that it was a cameraman and I’ve not seen anything to indicate that the jury found that was the case. If it was and, she didn’t react, the jury would have been within its bounds to believe that the lack of any adverse reaction when part of the taping crew pulled the top down was implied consent. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The jury could believe what they saw (no reaction.–implying consent) and not her testimony in support of a $5 million damage suit. That happens all the time in trials.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No problem Pea. I posted the link to the video of the Fox News coverage because it had two sides and the most favorable side to the plaintiff was of the opinion that the plaintiff’s case was weak.</p>
<p>I wasn’t clear from watching and listening whether the clip was from the video segment or from the tape, but not used. </p>
<p>Unless and until the entire tape of the plaintiff makes its way on the Internet or more likely is released on CD/DVD for a price at a cost by Mantra due to the notoriety, it would be hard to make a call. </p>
<p>This really is a CC hot button case, isn’t it?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I thought those “two sides” were about 1.2 sides, at most, and not a very interesting side at that. Like debating whether Obama is a Soviet sleeper agent or merely a socialist who hates America. Clearly in tune with the mindset in Cape Girardeau MO, though.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>LOL–yep, a jury of your peers. And, Fox correctly called implied consent as the key issue and picked the result.</p>
<p>Well, it wouldn’t have been tough to call implied consent as the issue. But – granting that all I have seen is the clip you linked, so there could have been more elsewhere – I am thoroughly disgusted by the Fox News commentary and the jury’s verdict.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Home of Southeast Missouri State, where Rush Limbaugh went. Stay classy, Missouri!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So if you steal my purse and I don’t react, you’re entitled to it?</p>
<p>^ Por supuesto. </p>
<p>Especially if it’s done on video.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Only if you’re dressed provocatively.</p>
<p>No, it is implied that the purse is a knock-off.</p>
<p>Seriously, there are all kinds of defenses in litigation based on actions and inactions. Waiver, estoppel, laches, limitations, easement by prescription -------.</p>
<p>Anyone an attorney from Missouri? Can implied consent be established by non-action under any circumstance? Is the judgment for GGW erroneous because as a matter of law inaction is legally insufficient to establish implied consent?</p>
<p>There are truly lessons to be learned from this incident. I tell my kids to avoid cameras, news reporters, journalists, filmers, etc. You never know in what context your are going to be shown. My mother still is upset about her brief moment of fame on the evening news when a reporter came up to her when she was getting a cup of coffee, and questioned her about her coffee drinking and preferences. The story really showed my mother in less than optimal light, and she had no idea what the story was going to be when she willing talked to the reporter and let herself be filmed. And she was lucky. It was innocuous compared to some quotes, snippets of film, stories that some people find themselves featured that make them look stupid.</p>