Page 3 of 102 FirstFirst 123451353 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 1522

Thread: Feminism

  1. #31
    Join The Resistance Barbarella's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Whorelando
    Posts
    7,086
    So yeah, this happened....

    Jury Decides Consent Is Not Required For Girls Gone Wild


    A jury ruled yesterday against a woman who claimed her reputation was damaged after she was featured on a "Girls Gone Wild" video. What makes this case remarkable is that she didn't expose her own breasts - she was assaulted.

    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.

    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.

    "I am stunned that this company can get away with this," said Jane Doe after the ruling. "Justice has not been served. I just don't understand. I gave no consent." When she heard what O'Brien had said, she tearfully added, "I was having fun until my top was pulled off. And now this thing is out there for the world to see forever."

    So let this be a lesson to us all. "Consent" is a flexible thing - at least in the eyes of the St. Louis courts. No means yes, and assault means it's okay to roll the cameras. If there were ever a time to get righteously angry, it's now.
    This makes me ill. Basically the court ruling was "SHE ASKED FOR IT!"

  2. #32
    whack ass bitch forever Autumn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Wichita, KS
    Posts
    2,892
    OH. EM. GEE.

    Fuckin' crazy.

  3. #33
    Loves ponies. Hates phonies. Regina Phalange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    8,188
    That is horrifying. And legally, although IANAL, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

    All those asshats complaining how the taping of Mel's tirades against Oksana were illegal, etc,... Well, I hope they get all up in arms about this person's right to privacy too.

    I wonder if there is an appeals process. And at least it was a jury and not a judge. Juries can be stupid *cough oj cough*

  4. #34
    Not epic but colossal. anj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    921
    IANAL? is this a new Apple product?

    []

  5. #35
    She better be appealing that decision. WTF.

  6. #36
    Loves ponies. Hates phonies. Regina Phalange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    8,188
    Quote Originally Posted by anj View Post
    IANAL? is this a new Apple product?

    []
    lol Sorry. I Am Not A Lawyer. I see it on my other boards so much I didn't think.

  7. #37
    ANUSTART Lathan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    [redacted]
    Posts
    3,645
    Quote Originally Posted by Scarlet View Post
    All those asshats complaining how the taping of Mel's tirades against Oksana were illegal, etc,... Well, I hope they get all up in arms about this person's right to privacy too.
    REALLY good point. (I'm afraid though that they'd put this woman in the same category as Oksana. Err - women.)

  8. #38
    Senior Member ontheindianside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by Scarlet View Post
    That is horrifying. And legally, although IANAL, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
    I wonder if there is an appeals process. And at least it was a jury and not a judge. Juries can be stupid *cough oj cough*
    There's definitely an appeals process. I'm not a lawyer either, but I work with them and on legal stuff. I'm assuming this is the first trial, and if I've learned this right, she was just in district court. So, I think she appeals to whatever circuit (federal) court serves that area. If the circuit court doesn't go her way, she could petition for a re-hearing en banc (when people say, for instance, "The Ninth Circuit ruled . . ." they're usually talking about a 3-judge panel of the circuit court; en banc means that all the circuit judges - I think there are nine? - re-hear the case). Then I believe she'd go to the state Supreme Court. Or, if she won at the circuit court, Girls Gone Wild would probably appeal, and it would still go to the state Supremes. If there are inconsistencies in the district, circuit or state SC rulings, she could petition the Supreme Court and they decide whether or not to hear the case. If they deny it, whatever the last ruling was stands.

    But I could be wrong in the order or missing something somewhere. Either way, it's complicated and expensive. GGW has the money, but I don't know how this woman is being represented and if she can afford the appeals process.

  9. #39
    ANUSTART Lathan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    [redacted]
    Posts
    3,645
    ^ I feel like some group could step in to help though, right? I'm sure some organization is going to be concerned about the precedent.

  10. #40
    'twas mbc 'twas kollins Michael Michael's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Where my feets takes me
    Posts
    1,194
    My Fault, I'm Female. It'd be funny if it wasn't so bloody depressing.

    15 Aspects That Must Be Recognized in Third Wave Feminism Must? Some of these points I can get behind.

    FEMINIST HULK HAVE TWITTER FEED. FEMINIST HULK SMASH UNEXAMINED PRIVILEGE, PATRIARCHY. ALSO CAPITALIZE ALL WORDS EXCEPT bell hooks.

  11. #41
    authentic hotdog cart vendor Frangipani's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,565
    That 15 Things link has been posted twice now

    14. There is nothing wrong with choosing to live in a traditional lifestyle (being a stay-at-home mom, wearing a burqa, having the male in a heterosexual relationship be the breadwinner, etc.), but there are major problems with expecting it and castigating those who do not fit into it. This being said, people who choose to live in traditional lifestyles must respect others choices as well.
    boom
    Slippin' on my red dress, putting on my make-up

  12. #42
    'If you existed, I'd divorce you.' spyk_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,688
    ^And how apt. Is there currently any discussion on these forumz about the burqa debate going on the UK? (I use the term 'debate' loosely). I've looked in Politics and OIT and I can't find anything. If not, I'll start a new thread. The fact that it's even being discussed as a serious topic astounds me.

  13. #43
    authentic hotdog cart vendor Frangipani's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,565
    Slippin' on my red dress, putting on my make-up

  14. #44
    'If you existed, I'd divorce you.' spyk_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,688
    ^Ahh, skipped over that one. Tah! [/hijack].

  15. #45
    Senior Member Cairn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    2,235
    Quote Originally Posted by Barbarella View Post
    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.[/URL]

    This makes me ill. Basically the court ruling was "SHE ASKED FOR IT!"
    How the FUCK is whether or not she gave conset debatable? She is heard on the video saying no. What the cunt does it matter what she was wearing or where she was dancing? Whether or not she was aware filming was occurring, whether or not she was happily dancing and/or playing up to the camera, she clearly said NO to exposing her breasts.

    Not only does this make me ill, it angers the living fuck out of me, and truth be told, scares me a little too.

    Thanks Joe Francis, for ruining my Sunday morning glow, you fucktard you.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •