Saturday Links

Saturday, July 24th, 2010
  • Interesting website of a former cop who has become a medical marijuana activist.
  • Well I’m convinced.
  • White House pulls the ol’ “dump your bad news on Friday afternoon” trick, announces that deficit will stay above $1.4 trillion through next year. The White House spin: At least it isn’t $1.5 trillion!
  • We may be living in someone else’s black hole. (BTW, if you aren’t watching Through the Wormhole With Morgan Freeman on the Science channel, you should be.)
  • This seems like a bad verdict.
  • New federal law will force states to allow public employees to unionize. This is a bad idea for a number of reasons, but Wendy McElory has the goods on a repercussion of interest to readers of this site: more police unions.
  • The Westboro Baptist Church protests are getting a bit hackneyed. Not sure therse people are serious enough to even merit a protest. Unless it’s a protest as awesome as this one.
  • As a man wh appreciates a good pun, I’d have bought this book solely for its title. But it looks like a fun read, too.
Digg it |  reddit |  del.icio.us |  Fark

93 Responses to “Saturday Links”

  1. #1 |  Mike Leatherwood | 

    The GGW verdict, although it was in civil court, doesn’t make much sense to me…oh, wait. I get it: women must want to be assaulted because they were wearing something, or were dancing, or were with people already being assaulted, etc
    I guess rape would have been ok, too.

    The only positive: it can be argued that not even police need consent to be filmed…

  2. #2 |  JS | 

    “Brian was introduced to FACAs in college, where the fraternities would rent a FACA during the weekends and go on binges of drinking and sex.”

    lol yea that’s all college students ever do, drink alcohol and have sex with robots!

  3. #3 |  Cornellian | 

    McElory’s description is misleading. The Bill doesn’t place state police under “federal union regulations” and doesn’t “remove control from state and local authorities.” It enables police to unionize under the same statutory regime that applies to private sector employers, i.e. the National Labor Relations Act, though it also prohibits them from going on strike.

    It’s a bad bill, and will probably never become law, it’s just not as bad as McElory portrays it.

  4. #4 |  bd | 

    I heard an interview with the author of the Euclid book. It was very interesting. I mentioned it to a friend who ran out and bought it and he said that he’s really enjoying it. I plan on picking it up at the library and, if I like it enough, buy it.

  5. #5 |  ktc2 | 

    http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/crime/2010/07/22/pkg.ding.dong.ditch.wnyt?hpt=T2

    Man arrested for tackling kid doing ding dong ditch. Remember recently when a cop shot a kid to death for the same thing and faced no charges?

  6. #6 |  CharlesWT | 

    According to a lot of women, sex with robots is already a problem.

  7. #7 |  croaker | 

    Threadjack: NY Homeowner who grabbed kid won’t be prosecuted.

    http://blog.timesunion.com/crime/da-daniel-plew-wont-face-charges/5593/#comment-16663

  8. #8 |  SES | 

    I was quite certain by the end of the anti-robot dating piece I was going to hear an endorsement by the Space Pope. Alas, no.

    Also, Futurama totally got the jump on this one.

  9. #9 |  Thomas Paine's Goiter | 

    “This seems like a bad verdict.”

    “The GGW verdict, although it was in civil court, doesn’t make much sense to me…oh, wait. I get it: women must want to be assaulted because they were wearing something, or were dancing, or were with people already being assaulted, etc
    I guess rape would have been ok, too.”

    Mike, Radley: Jezebel’s account of that is salacious. There was no assault, no conviction of assault. Jezebel says that she was assaulted.

    Read here:
    http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/article_30865bcc-95eb-11df-9734-00127992bc8b.html

    “But Patrick O’Brien, the jury foreman, told a reporter later that an 11-member majority decided that Doe had in effect consented by being in the bar and dancing for the photographer. In a trial such as this one, agreement by nine of 12 jurors is enough for a verdict.

    “Through her actions, she gave implied consent,” O’Brien said. “She was really playing to the camera. She knew what she was doing.””

  10. #10 |  Alex | 

    9-
    Somebody grabbed her shirt and pulled it down for the camera, that was the assault.

  11. #11 |  qwints | 

    In the GGW case, it seems the jury failed to find a difference between consenting to being filmed – which she did – and consent to having her bare breasts filmed – which she did not. If so, that’s a horrible decision. The only way it’s a defensible decision is if the jury decided that she consented both to having her shirt pulled down and having her bare breasts filmed.

    @9, she was factually assaulted. Somebody grabbed her shirt and exposed her breasts without her consent. That person could face civil or criminal charges assuming it’s not past the statute of limitations. No conviction does not mean no crime.

  12. #12 |  J sub D | 

    Well I’m convinced.

    Once you learn that no rules apply to GOD and no explanations are required to prove HIS existence, it’s all clear as a mountain stream.

  13. #13 |  J sub D | 

    New federal law will force states to allow public employees to unionize. This is a bad idea for a number of reasons, but Wendy McElory has the goods on a repercussion of interest to readers of this site: more police unions.

    Because unionized government employees are a time tested surefire way to reduce government expenditures. But wait, I’m not done bitchin’ yet.

    The act is part of a supplemental appropriations bill meant to fund military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    No shame. None whatsoever.

    Lastly, I thought as part of the new transparency promised by the ruling party we were going to stop the use of gimmicky supplemental funding bills to fund our useless wasteful wars and just honestlly use the regular budget for that.

    I guess we haven’t been hoping for change enough. Or something.

  14. #14 |  Dave Krueger | 

    I see robots as a means by which everyone could have a harem in spite of the even gender split. Science comes to the rescue again.

  15. #15 |  MPH | 

    GGW verdict seems OK to me, based on the information in the linked article (and the newspaper article it links to) and comments. I think we need a LOT more information to form an intelligent opinion on what the jury in the case decided (you know, like the kind of information the jury should have had access to).

    Here’s my line of thought based on JUST the linked articles. I didn’t attempt to find the trial transcript, which might have information in it to sway my opinion in a different direction (I don’t even know if such a transcript is available on line).

    To avoid confusion, I’ll use Sue as the name of the woman who had her top pulled down, and Jo as the name of the woman who pulled it down (names are obviously made up, and were not present in the articles).

    Sue and Jo were in a venue where it was known that GGW was videotaping (a comment to the article stated that GGW usually rents a bar, posts that they are taping and that entering the bar constitutes consent to be taped). Jo (apparently unaffiliated with GGW) pulled Sue’s top down while Sue was dancing immediately in front of a GGW camera (she knew the camera was present). The article linked to by Balko states Sue was “assaulted” when Jo pulled her top exposing her breasts (a definition I agree with, if and only if we are correct in assuming that this was not something cooked up by Sue and Jo beforehand to further the resulting lawsuit). Yet there is no mention in that article nor the newspaper article it linked to that Jo was charged with assault. So Sue didn’t file a police complaint for the assault (I’d guess because Jo was a friend), and didn’t sue Jo (I’d guess because Jo didn’t have $5 million). But Sue sued GGW a long time after the release of the DVD. Sue could have called the police at the time of the incident and filed a complaint of assault, and the tape would have been confiscated as evidence. During the course of the investigation, Sue could have made arrangements to prevent that portion of the tape from being distributed. Instead, Sue waits until GGW has made $ from the DVD before filing suit for 3x the $ GGW made on the DVD. Based on all that, I’d look at it as gold digging.

    As an intellectual exercise, let’s wonder about something similar. Recall when a woman exposed herself in this manner outside one of the morning news shows (I can’t recall if it was Today, or Good Morning America, etc.). She waited until she knew she was visible nationwide via a live video camera and then exposed her breasts (so it is clear she WANTED to be exposed). Now let’s put Sue and Jo there instead. Sue and Jo BOTH know that they’re standing in a spot that is broadcast live nationwide. So they BOTH know that their images are instantaneously being sent to millions of TV sets. Jo then exposes Sue (as was done in the GGW case) apparently without Sue’s permission.

    Why is the news show liable for Sue’s exposure and not Jo? Why does the liability change when there is some sort of delay between the exposure and the distribution of the exposure? How much of a delay is needed for liability to shift from Jo to the distribution company? How much of a delay is needed for it to be reasonable to conclude that since Sue hasn’t attempted to prevent distribution, Sue consents to distribution?

    Sue was supposedly surprised to find out that distribution had occurred, but no mention was made that she had attempted to prevent it (I would assume if she had, and that had been mentioned in court, the article would have mentioned it because that would have made GGW and the jury look even worse).

    So Sue could have, at the time of the event: called the police, filed an assault complaint, the tape(s) in question would have been confiscated as evidence, asked for an injunction against the footage being used by GGW, and in short, prevented any damage to her reputation (I’m no lawyer, and I’m aware of these measures) from GGW’s distribution of the video. Instead, she waits until she supposedly hears “through the grapevine” that GGW distributed the DVD with her on it, after GGW made a lot of money from it, before she decides to do anything about it.

    It sounds to me like she heard about what happened to “The Guy Game” and thought she could make some money doing something similar. For those that don’t know, The Guy Game is a lot like Jeopardy, just in Video game format; It featured women flashing their breasts when they got a question wrong. It is the kind of game that would be popular at bachelor parties and fraternities. In that case, filming occurred in Texas. All the women involved signed consent forms. But it turned out that one of them had a fake ID, and she was actually 17 (call her Sally). Sally waited to sue until her presence in the game was widely known around her school and church. Sally got the game pulled, but I haven’t been able to find out if there has been a final verdict in terms of monetary damages (she’s suing Microsoft and Sony, who had NOTHING to do with the development and distribution of the game; just the consoles they play on; I’m sure that the deepness of their pockets had nothing to do with it; I’m just amazed that Sally isn’t also suing all the TV manufacturers, too). But since Sally committed fraud by presenting a fake ID, and admitted on the record that she willingly participated, I have found some opinions on line that all she’ll be able to do is keep her footage out of any future distributions.

    Knowing this just makes me think that Sue learned from Sally’s mistakes. She’s a legal adult (article said 20), and while willing to appear in a GGW video, her breasts being exposed appears to have been done without her consent (again, assuming Sue and Jo didn’t cook this up between them). Lest you think this scenario unlikely, recall the case at Disney World where a woman faked a rape so she could sue Disney (http://patrickmead.net/2007/03/16/scamming-the-mouse/). Doing this involved having unprotected sex with a stranger and a beating from someone in on the scam. Some people will go to extreme lengths to win the lawsuit lottery; there’s nothing in the article about Sue’s case against GGW that convinces me she wasn’t trying to do just that.

  16. #16 |  Dave Krueger | 

    Seems like the GGW article leaves out a lot of detail. If she was dancing for the camera, it would seem like she was ok with being recorded. If someone unaffiliated with GGW pulled her top down, then it would seem like her gripe should be with him (or her). I suspect the suit was against GGW simply because they have the deep pockets.

    In any case, I’m highly skeptical that the article accurately represents the reasoning of the jury.

  17. #17 |  ClassAction | 

    #15

    I’m giving you a thumbs down on principle, because your post is unnecessarily long, pedantic, and pointlessly speculative. For basing your interpretive essay on just two brief articles, you have concocted a rather elaborate fantasy of the events in question.

  18. #18 |  MacGregory | 

    There was an animated movie in 1981 called “Heavy Metal” that inferred human-robot sex. Pretty funny scene, actually.

    Robot: Earth women who experience sexual ecstasy with mechanical assistance always tend to feel guilty!

  19. #19 |  ClassAction | 

    #16

    Would I be OK with someone that pulled my pants down in front of a video crew? No, absolutely not. But ultimately, if what I’m opposed to is having the video of my pantsing being distributed to the entire world, the people I’d really have a problem with are the ones doing the distributing.

    It’s not that hard a concept to grasp.

  20. #20 |  fish | 

    Still no answer to the eternal question?

    “Magnets, how do they work”?

  21. #21 |  SusanK | 

    She knew her breasts were exposed in front of the video camera when it happened. She doesn’t know the camera was filming? She doesn’t know the footage made it onto the DVD? I got the feeling from reading the St. Louis Times article that she just ignored it all and did nothing until her husband’s friend told him about it.
    She should have done something about it right away. Waiting this long makes it hard to see her side.

  22. #22 |  ZappaCrappa | 

    LMAO at the Fred Phelps/Westboro Asshole Church vs. ComicCon. Dear Fred…this just in…God STILL hates assholes. Now please hurry up and die…I’ve been holding my piss for a LONG time waiting to empty my bladder on your dirt mattress.

  23. #23 |  croaker | 

    @14 Homo Sapiens may not be wired for harems. Or not harems exclusive to one male.

    http://www.sexatdawn.com/

    Just finished the book. Lots of food for thought there.

  24. #24 |  Leonard | 

    #15, the difference between the actual case and your hypothesized Today show assault is that Today show goes out live and therefore cannot revoke any images they broadcast. Whereas, even though GGW had this woman’s bare breasts on tape, they had no right to profit from those images. They certainly ought to know whose consent they have, and whose they do not have, and they certainly should not be able to assume consent for a woman who says “no” on recording they have. So they are culpable.

    About the only thing I can say in support of that verdict is that it is so awful, so blatantly and obviously wrong, that it makes me think there must be something about it we don’t know.

    I do think $5m is too high for the damage alleged. Seems to me that most of the damage done to that woman’s reputation was done with her consent, simply by being at the event and dancing for the camera, which she did of her own free will. Note to women who value their reputation: don’t go to GGW events. Duh. The additional delta in damages of seeing her tits is certainly significant, but I find it hard to view it as worth $5m.

    That said, I would expect some damages. And at the least I would expect GGW to be enjoined to cease selling that video until they remove the images of that woman’s breasts, and to cease using images of naked women without getting written consent from those women.

  25. #25 |  MPH | 

    Yeah, ClassAction, I usually don’t realize how long my comments are until they are posted. And I guess my assumption that people can glance at an article and decide it’s too long for their taste without reading it was expecting too much, at least of you. You’ll probably think this one is too long as well, so I’d advise you to stop reading now; I wouldn’t want you to strain yourself unnecessarily. As for being pedantic, I guess that’s my engineering training. I’m just trying to be precise and thorough in explaining my thoughts.

    So you’d be upset with the people distributing video of your “pantsing”. Well, at the risk of asking you to be pedantic, would you attempt to stop the distribution BEFORE it happens? Especially since you know who the distributers are, and that they specialize in distributing such videos? And if you would attempt to stop it, how would you? Yet no mention is made of any such attempt in either the article Radley linked to, or the newspaper article it linked to. Are we just supposed to assume that such an attempt did happen when making a value judgement about the verdict? Or should we assume that it should make no difference what steps were or were not taken to prevent the DVD’s distribution when assessing the verdict?

    My point was that Radley was making a value judgement on too little information (At the time I started my original comment, there were only 5 up, so I was inspired into commenting by comment #1, which makes a lot of unstated “she’s completely a victim” type assumptions). The jury doubtless heard a lot of testimony that isn’t in the articles (since it was stated that it took 3 days, I think that’s a safe assumption to make). I and others have presented possible scenarios in which such a verdict would not be unreasonable, and spelled out what our assumptions were (although I did go into more detail than might have been needed, and certainly more than you wanted).

    But I don’t see you mentioning what assumptions you’ve used to determine that this was a bad verdict. And given how sparse the information is in the original articles, we all have to make a LOT of assumptions to make a value judgement on this verdict. I stated some of mine (as did some others), you’re hiding all of yours. This isn’t a case of some friend posting something on line that you don’t like (and how you would stop that before it happens is a mystery to me, since some services upload and post video as it is being taken). This is a case of a business that had to edit a lot of raw video, produce a DVD master, case cover, etc. before manufacturing and distribution could begin, giving the victim plenty of time to attempt to stop her appearing topless on the DVD, yet no mention is made of her attempting this. Instead, apparently she waited until there was the possibility of a big payday before acting. That sounds like trying to win the lawsuit lottery to me.

    And that also isn’t that hard a concept to grasp. I accept that the jury may have made a bad decision here. I also accept that the jury could have made a good one, and presented a situation that I thought would illustrate why, with two real life examples I was aware of to illustrate my reasoning. But as I stated in the second sentence of my original post: I think we need a LOT more information to form an intelligent opinion on what the jury in the case decided (you know, like the kind of information the jury should have had access to). If we had information that she had immediately attempted to prevent the distribution of the topless portion of her appearance (which, since it was brief, would not burden GGW excessively), and GGW ignored her, I’d be right up there with all those who, like Radley, think this was a bad verdict. Without this and other missing information, all any of us are doing is pointlessly speculating, whether we put our speculations in our comments or not.

    I just think we ought to give the jury the benefit of the doubt, at least until we’ve seen a video of everything the jury saw (transcripts don’t convey body language, which is an important part of communicating to the jury). You, unless you were present at the trial, or have seen a video of it (neither of which you’ve indicated, so I’m assuming not), are just applying your preconceived assumptions about what happened overtop the articles in question, and forming your conclusions based on that. How omniscient of you.

  26. #26 |  Bob | 

    “I just think we ought to give the jury the benefit of the doubt, at least until we’ve seen a video of everything the jury saw.”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bjx5gBtxUA

    There you go.

  27. #27 |  The Johnny Appleseed Of Crack | 

    Re: the GGW case,

    As Warner Wolf used to say, “Let’s go to the videotape!”

  28. #28 |  hattio | 

    MPH Says;

    “This is a case of a business that had to edit a lot of raw video, produce a DVD master, case cover, etc. before manufacturing and distribution could begin, giving the victim plenty of time to attempt to stop her appearing topless on the DVD, yet no mention is made of her attempting this. Instead, apparently she waited until there was the possibility of a big payday before acting. That sounds like trying to win the lawsuit lottery to me.”

    MPH,
    You’re missing that the one thing they edited out was her specifically saying she didn’t consent. That’s not an assumption, that’s stated in the article. So, did she take some action at the time to make sure GGW didn’t profit? Yeah, she told them she didn’t consent. Now, maybe she should have done more, maybe not. But you claim that if you had evidence that she tried to stop GGW, and GGW ignored those efforts, you could see her side. What you really mean is that if she had tried HARDER to stop them, you could see her side. I’m sorry, a lack of consent is a lack of consent. Though I agree with you that she should have been suing the person who assaulted her (assuming that person isn’t affiliated with GGW).

    MPH also says;

    “If we had information that she had immediately attempted to prevent the distribution of the topless portion of her appearance (which, since it was brief, would not burden GGW excessively), and GGW ignored her, I’d be right up there with all those who, like Radley, think this was a bad verdict”

    So she should have ASSUMED that GGW was going to ignore her lack of consent? Why would she assume that?

  29. #29 |  Mattocracy | 

    Whoa whoa whoa…I thought this site was a just a front for liberals? What’s this calling out Obama for his spending and selling out to unions? Someone needs to get back to perpetuating the stereotypes that are expected of him.

  30. #30 |  Marc | 

    Agree w/ #15. She knew they were filming there, why didn’t she demand that part be cut from the video when it happened? Maybe she did, can’t tell from the info posted. Unless that was her friend, it is assault, but by the person that pulled her top down, not GGW (unless the person worked for them). If she didn’t file assault charges against that person, it doesn’t sound credible that she could then as kfor damages from GGW.

    I guess I’m also a little jaded towards feeling sympathy because it really does just stink of a pathetic easy money grab. Five million dollars for that?! People beaten to a bloody stump by the police while helpless get damages a fraction of that, if they even get anything!

  31. #31 |  SJE | 

    How can cops assert a right to privacy for arrests on a public street if someone can make money from a movie in which a woman was sexually assaulted, citing no expectation of privacy.

  32. #32 |  Mattocracy | 

    Sex with robots is such a ridiculous fear. But being anal probed by aliens, that is no laughing matter.

  33. #33 |  Marc | 

    Regarding Comic-con, that bender protester with “Kill All Humans” wins.

    Only thing that could top it is a Bastard!! cosplayer with a sign, “There’s only one god, and his name is Dark Schneider!”

    And I’m sure not a single person here will know what I’m talking about.

  34. #34 |  hattio | 

    MPH,
    According to the video posted by Bob, the woman is claiming that her top was pulled down by a GGW staffer. I don’t know whether there was other evidence saying it wasn’t her. But, if that is true, does that change your opinion?

  35. #35 |  hattio | 

    That should be “other evidence saying it wasn’t TRUE” Sorry for the mistype.

  36. #36 |  Bob | 

    Regarding Comic-con, that bender protester with “Kill All Humans” wins.

    Only thing that could top it is a Bastard!! cosplayer with a sign, “There’s only one god, and his name is Dark Schneider!”

    And I’m sure not a single person here will know what I’m talking about.

    MEGADETH!

  37. #37 |  Marty | 

    in my personal life, I like the ggw ruling- we have 2 teenaged girls in the house and it gives us more ammo to (hopefully) help them to keep their boobs to themselves…

  38. #38 |  Duncan20903 | 

    Well I must say they’ve come a long way with blow up sex dolls since I was a lad in puberty.
    ..
    -0-

    I had occasion to watch a rerun of CSI:New York and it featured the dolls from Realdoll.com within days of that site’s mention in this column. Synchronicity strikes again.

  39. #39 |  xenia onatopp | 

    I’m more in awe than ever of the fannish goodness that is ComicCon. Who wouldn’t agree that the best weapon against Phelps is a heaping helping of truth, justice and the American Way?

    I’m not personally too bothered by the WBC and their demonstrations; I’m an atheist fangirl who sees most of my pop culture and scifi obsessions through slash-tinted glasses, so I already know that God hates me, and I’m ok with that.

    I’m also a mother, and my 21 year old son is a Marine just back from Afghanistan, so I’m not insensitive to the pain caused by the hate-ins being staged at military funerals. Short version of my take is that freedom is sometimes unpleasant and painful. If he hadn’t made it back alive, I would be devastated, but to my mind it would tarnish my love for my son and make a mockery of his sworn duty to uphold the Constitution were I to use his death in an attempt to deprive Phelps, and by extension every one of us, of even the smallest bit of liberty. It’s in short enough supply already.

  40. #40 |  JS | 

    Xenia Onatopp “Short version of my take is that freedom is sometimes unpleasant and painful. If he hadn’t made it back alive, I would be devastated, but to my mind it would tarnish my love for my son and make a mockery of his sworn duty to uphold the Constitution were I to use his death in an attempt to deprive Phelps, and by extension every one of us, of even the smallest bit of liberty. It’s in short enough supply already.”

    That was really good. You are an amazing person!

  41. #41 |  Duncan20903 | 

    When watching episodes of COPS I’ve often wondered why some of the perps are fuzzed out and some not. It seems to me that they’re all fair game to be recorded and broadcast as they’re almost always in the public with no reasonable expectation of privacy and people getting arrested is public information. There doesn’t seem to be any correlation to native intelligence as some of the most extreme morons are presented uncensored. So can I safely presume that COPS gets releases from those that they present uncensored but fuzz out those who refuse, and do this in order to avoid litigation? They don’t necessarily have to worry about judgments against them as just the act of litigation would cost them money. This thing probably cost GGW well into 6 figures just to defend this lawsuit.

  42. #42 |  Cynical in CA | 

    “This seems like a bad verdict.”

    Sometimes a jury returns a wrong verdict. That’s why there are courts of appeal, to remedy verdicts that are aberrations. At least, that’s what I heard from the super-smug assistant sheriff of Maricopa County earlier this week.

    I hope that chick wins double her award on appeal.

  43. #43 |  The Johnny Appleseed Of Crack | 

    Duncan20903,
    If you are detained by the police, the entire situation happens without your consent. You can’t say, “I don’t want to stand here in this public place and be filmed”. Therefore, if they want to publicly show the video of your police encounter, they ought to be required to obtain your consent.

    This doesn’t mean they can’t take video without your consent, only that it shouldn’t be available to the general public without your consent.

  44. #44 |  Cynical in CA | 

    Another word regarding the verdict in the GGW case.

    A verdict is an opinion, but it is always true in and of itself. That’s what “verdict” means — true speech.

    All opinions are subjective. The final word in justice depends on drawing the line somewhere. In America, that means the true speech of a jury of one’s peers.

    What a verdict demonstrates is how the local community judges human behavior — what is acceptable, what is not. In this case, the St. Louis community has upheld the legality of filming a woman’s breasts and distributing the photos and profiting from that, with or without her consent. That is what passes for acceptable behavior in St. Louis, like it or not.

    The local verdict may be overturned on appeal on some esoteric doctrine of which I am not familiar, not being a lawyer and all. In that case, St. Louis as a community will be brought back into the fold of American society. Until and unless that happens, the citizens of St. Louis have demonstrated to the rest of civilized society just how uncivilized they are. They are worthy of ostracism and economic boycott, IMO.

    The State has many means at its disposal for oppression: the legislature, the executive bureaucracy, the police and now the judiciary from the judges to the prosecutors all the way down to the jury. The jury is traditionally viewed as the last line of defense for the citizen — the St. Louis jury, in speaking truth, has done great damage to this shield.

  45. #45 |  Jim Fryar | 

    Its a pity the robot guy is such a dick, he has a great knowledge of how the free market works.

  46. #46 |  bobzbob | 

    I would think that libertarians would support the right of people to freely associate in order to improve their ability to negotiate wages? If unions are a bad idea then other entities which are collections of people organized together to provide their services for a fee, i.e. corporations, are also a bad idea.

  47. #47 |  ClassAction | 

    It amazes me that people are actually making the argument that if this woman didn’t file criminal or civil assault charges against the person that pulled down her top, it somehow impugns her credibility now. Are you kidding me? No police officer is going to want to take that report. A municipal prosecutor wouldn’t even consider it worth their time to prosecute. If private criminal complaints are available in your jurisdiction, you could prosecute it yourself – but to what end? You’d have to show up two or three months later, and even if you got a conviction, it’s a misdemeanor. Civilly, there is no reason to file because there are no compensatory damages for a garden variety case of having your top pulled down. It’s a dead end.

    Thousands of people are pantsed every year. Or have their tops pulled down in public or semi-public places, and very few if any of these people ever file criminal charges. It’s ridiculous.

  48. #48 |  ClassAction | 

    #44

    Cynical, you are totally off the deep end on this one. A group of eight or nine people does not, in any meaningful sense, speak for any community but themselves. They certainly do not represent an entire city full of people who, I’m sure, have vastly differing opinions on most things, including this verdict.

  49. #49 |  BrentM | 

    oh When Fred Phelps Dies! That will be fun. Homosexuals, Soldiers,Homosexuals Soldiers,and just about everyone else aught to protest his funeral. Except that would be giving that dirtbag more attention than he ever deserved. BTW i’m a deployed soldier right now and a atheist who knows god deosn’t hate because she doesn’t exist and i’m ok with that. And if Phelps or his cronies show up at a funeral of someone I served with they better hope I’m not there.

  50. #50 |  lunchstealer | 

    “We may be living in someone else’s black hole.”

    You kiss your mama with that mouth, Radley?

  51. #51 |  Mattocracy | 

    @ bobzbob,

    Unions often black ball non union members from employment. That is the standard tactic in order to get their wage bargaining to actually stick. There isn’t anything remotely free market about that. It results in wages being inflated beyond what the market would normally dictate. Also not free market.

  52. #52 |  Dave Krueger | 

    #19 ClassAction

    #16

    Would I be OK with someone that pulled my pants down in front of a video crew? No, absolutely not. But ultimately, if what I’m opposed to is having the video of my pantsing being distributed to the entire world, the people I’d really have a problem with are the ones doing the distributing.

    It’s not that hard a concept to grasp.

    The fact that she’s going after the deep pockets isn’t that hard to grasp either.

    But I see your point. It seems completely understandable that she would be less concerned with the guy who physically assaulted her and totally pissed off at the people who merely embarrassed her. Yeah, that seems completely reasonable.

    Never mind what I said about the guy who pulled her top down being the root cause for her being seen naked in front of anyone.

    I can see how having recordings of yourself distributed is considered a worse offense than assault. Hell, cops hold that exact same position.

  53. #53 |  Alex | 

    52- I only just read this last comment, so maybe you’ve already addressed this, but who says she even knows/remembers who pulled her shirt down? Surely you can understand why she would be angry with GGW – she specifically said no, on their tapes, and never gave any sort of implied consent other than “being there.” She, as she said, should be able to “be there” without being filmed naked against her will, right? And how strong a case would she even have against the one who pulled her shirt down? “I was drunk in the middle of the night dancing in a crowded bar with tons of people all around me but I’m certain that X pulled my shirt down.” Perhaps the person is clearly in the video, but there’s just as strong a chance he isn’t, and it would be hard for her to know which.

  54. #54 |  Alex | 

    bobzbob-
    I thought I was missing something. I can easily see libertarians supporting right to work laws, but otherwise it doesn’t make any sense at all that libertarians would oppose even the *legality* of free associations of workers negotiating for their own gain, which is about as libertarian as anything can get. Obviously there’s plenty to oppose in how many unions are run and how they go after their goals, but to say “X free, nonviolent action causes some problems, so it should be banned” is exactly the sort of reasoning that gets lambasted on a regular basis here. Oppose the non-voluntary aspects of Big Labor, or the collusion of unions and government, but not their ability to exist in the first place.

  55. #55 |  Marty | 

    #47 | ClassAction

    there are differences between being ‘pantsed in public’ and being filmed for ggw… being ‘pantsed’ is embarrassing, but it’s done. it’s fleeting. it’d be very difficult to measure harm or recover damages. the harm with the ggw video is that it continues to embarrass and the ggw people are profiting without her consent. you can see the harm and there’s a clear way to recover damages. I’m not a lawyer, but this seems clear to me.

    without seeing what the jury saw, I have no idea how I would’ve voted in this case.

  56. #56 |  Elemenope | 

    #46

    It’s a mystery for the ages. Some associations are “good” associations and some are “bad” associations. You know, just like liberals think some speech is “good” speech and some speech is “bad” speech. More principled libertarians will tell you that unions are fine, but their privileges being guaranteed by the power of the state is not. Of course, the population of total libertarians is small, so take a guess on how big that subset is.

    #51

    In what way is that not a free market? What stops you and your fellow black-balled buddies from forming your own collective bargaining unit and outbidding the current union? Taking government out of it for a second, isn’t colluding for collective bargaining leverage a free-market action in exactly the same way as colluding to produce a product is?

  57. #57 |  Dave Krueger | 

    #53 Alex

    52- I only just read this last comment, so maybe you’ve already addressed this, but who says she even knows/remembers who pulled her shirt down?

    So, your theory is that if you don’t know of can’t remember who assaulted you, it’s acceptable to make someone else pay for it? I don’t think so.

    Surely you can understand why she would be angry with GGW – she specifically said no, on their tapes, and never gave any sort of implied consent other than “being there.” She, as she said, should be able to “be there” without being filmed naked against her will, right?

    Being angry isn’t the same as having a legitimate claim. GGW was filming there, presumably with permission. She knew they were filming there and apparently didn’t have a problem with it. Everything is fine at that point. The injury to her happened at the hands of the guy who assaulted her. The folks dong the filming have no obligation to verify the next day, after everyone sobers up, that it’s still ok for them to publish video made the night before.

    Essentially, she is in a “public” place, with no expectation of privacy just as if she were out on the street. An assault happened and someone recorded it. The person doing the taping doesn’t have to get anyone’s permission to publish that film just as no one who films a cop in an embarrassing situation in public has to get permission from the cop to publish it on youtube. Would you really want it any other way?

    And how strong a case would she even have against the one who pulled her shirt down? “I was drunk in the middle of the night dancing in a crowded bar with tons of people all around me but I’m certain that X pulled my shirt down.” Perhaps the person is clearly in the video, but there’s just as strong a chance he isn’t, and it would be hard for her to know which.

    The fact that she doesn’t have a convincing case against the guy who assaulted her doesn’t make her case against GGW legitimate. You don’t get to collect damages from someone else just because you don’t have a case against the guy who actually injured you, although that (along with the deep pockets theory) is quite socially acceptable in a culture that vilifies corporations. GGW is in the sex industry and they have money. That’s basically what this case is about.

    This reminds me of the case where that cop beat up that bartender. I could just see that video being suppressed from both the public and the courts because the cop didn’t know he was being recorded and didn’t give permission.

    If the guy who pulled down her top was part of GGW, then that would certainly change things, but there is no proof of that and it wasn’t mentioned in the article I commented on in #16.

  58. #58 |  Bob | 

    I fail to see what the hub bub over the woman’s “Wardrobe malfunction” is.

    Sure, she was the victim of a misdemeanor, specifically “Sexual Misconduct in the first degree”, which carries a maximum penalty of 1 year in the slammer. It also has a Statute of Limitations of one year and no one was charged in the one year period. As such, that’s a non issue.

    Sure, she didn’t give permission to have her boob filmed for the DVD, while that’s embarrassing… it’s no more harmful than her shaking it for the camera prior to the incident.

    All in all, the woman failed to show injury or damage beyond slight embarrassment.

    Why would it surprise anyone that a jury would nullify by finding for the plaintiff? Once you remove the misdemeanor charge and consider the lack of actual damages, all you have left is a blatant cash grab.

  59. #59 |  Bob | 

    Dave Krueger:

    She does have a case, but it’s a small one. Her case is that the GGW films are a commercial venture, and profit is being made off her mishap. But since most of the women are paid only with a free T-shirt, and they were ‘harmed’ by the filming no more than she was, her demands seem massively excessive.

    She should have made demands small enough to justify them being handled out of court.

  60. #60 |  Dave Krueger | 

    Forgive my use of the now antiquated verb “film” instead of tape or record in my posts. My choice of words may be influenced by the fact that traditional darkroom photography is my hobby. In any case, it’s only a matter of time before film makes a stunning resurgence as digital fades into history along with the internet and cell phones

  61. #61 |  Dave Krueger | 

    #59 Bob

    Dave Krueger:

    She does have a case, but it’s a small one. Her case is that the GGW films are a commercial venture, and profit is being made off her mishap. But since most of the women are paid only with a free T-shirt, and they were ‘harmed’ by the filming no more than she was, her demands seem massively excessive.

    You mean those pricks didn’t even give her a t-shirt? What a bunch of assholes.

    I see your point. So, if its GGW’s commercial character that makes the difference here, then her only real gripe has nothing to do with embarrassment or assault, but rather that she doesn’t feel like she got her cut of the action.

  62. #62 |  ClassAction | 

    #52
    Dave, you’re being deliberately obtuse.

    As anyone who has ever been bullied in school or in public knows – being pushed, poked, threatened, intimidated, or having your personal space and integrity violated in some minor fashion in one thing – but it’s the humiliation of it being done in public, in front of other people, that creates lasting emotional harm. For ‘minor’ cases of ‘assault’ like this, the subsequent shame and embarrassment of having the initial assault broadcast to millions of people is far, fare more painful than the incident itself.

    #55 Marty

    I COMPLETELY agree with you. I think that’s the important difference. People are making the inane argument that if this woman didn’t try to press ridiculous charges against the person that flipped down her top – charges that NO municipal prosecutor would have ever brought (she would have been lucky if the police even filed an incident report), that somehow it diminishes her credibility or her claim regarding the harm she’s suffered by having the incident broadcast to millions of people. I completely disagree, and I think people are being willfully ignorant of the difference.

  63. #63 |  ClassAction | 

    #58

    Nonsense. There is no jury nullification here. The Jury could have found for the victim and then found her measure of damages to be nothing, or minimal, if they were so inclined to do so. Instead, what they chose to find was that being a woman in the mere presence of a Girls Gone Wild video camera, even after you’ve explicitly denied your consent to being videotaped topless, means that you consent to having a sexual assault against you broadcast to the world. It’s just another iteration of, when you’re a woman, no doesn’t always mean no.

  64. #64 |  Joe | 

    AI dealt with the issue of Sex Bots too. I think that article actually makes a lot of sense.

  65. #65 |  ClassAction | 

    There’s nothing illibertarian about unions per se. There’s also nothing illibertarian about unions negotiating closed-shop agreements with employers whereby if you aren’t a member of the union you can’t work at a particular employer. The problem is that the National Labor Relations Act makes firing an otherwise at-will employee for being a union member illegal, and forces employers to bargain with a federally recognized union. Remove the extra legal protections that federally recognized unions get, and I’ll have no problems with them. I also think you’ll see more innovative and dynamic unions, which will better represent their constituents than the old, gentrified business unions.

  66. #66 |  Alex | 

    “So, your theory is that if you don’t know of can’t remember who assaulted you, it’s acceptable to make someone else pay for it? I don’t think so.”
    Um, no.

    “…The folks dong the filming have no obligation to verify the next day, after everyone sobers up, that it’s still ok for them to publish video made the night before.”
    Your last sentence doesn’t address my point at all. You seem to be taking the line of the foreman, who thinks that being at a bar where GGW is filming is the same as consenting to being filmed naked. How in the world does GGW not have the obligation to ensure that a woman who has her shirt pulled down entirely against her will, and then, multiple times, on camera, explicitly *denies* consent, is ok with being shown naked in their videos?

    As for the rest of your post, I never claimed that the legitimacy of her claim against GGW had anything to do with whether she had a case against the assaulter. And I’m not sure how the cop analogies are relevant.

  67. #67 |  croaker | 

    Re: Fred Phelps and his cult

    I find it the epitome of legal hypocrisy that the actions of his cult are not considered a hate crime, but burning down his church would be.

  68. #68 |  ClassAction | 

    #59 Bob is right. If someone does something to a person against their will, then the appropriate compensation is the price regularly paid to people who do it voluntarily. So, for example, if you were to rape someone, the victim’s measure of damages would clearly be the going rate for similar sexual services.

    I mean, it’s so obvious… not.

  69. #69 |  Elemenope | 

    Isn’t there a pretty strong presumption against the assumption of consent in situations like this, hence the recourse to release forms and suchlike? And even if consent is assumed, isn’t it immediately obliterated by her vocal, repeated “no”?

  70. #70 |  Bob | 

    ClassAction

    #59 Bob is right. If someone does something to a person against their will, then the appropriate compensation is the price regularly paid to people who do it voluntarily. So, for example, if you were to rape someone, the victim’s measure of damages would clearly be the going rate for similar sexual services.

    I mean, it’s so obvious… not.

    Rape is a crime of violence, not sex. As such, compensation commensurate with an act of prostitution would not be appropriate. I believe the phrase “Strawman argument” applies here.

  71. #71 |  Dave Krueger | 

    Like it or not, publication is not contingent on everyone being happy they won’t be embarrassed. If it were, shows like P&T’s Bullshit would be impossible. The jury decided the woman gave consent by her actions in the club. Once consent is given, it’s a done deal. You don’t get to change your mind later. If it were, nothing would ever be published.

  72. #72 |  Elemenope | 

    Once consent is given, it’s a done deal. You don’t get to change your mind later. If it were, nothing would ever be published.

    This isn’t even close to true. Especially regarding sexual matters, consent can be revoked at any time during the act. You can walk into a bar, consent to being filmed, and then conditions change (e.g. someone pulls your shirt off, or you feel sick, or you even just ‘get a bad feeling’), you can cease your consent verbally.

    The jury were either privy to something we’re not, or are fucking idiots. She said “no”. Full stop.

  73. #73 |  MPH | 

    Replies to several, see numbers below.

    #26, See, this is why I include so much detail, and in this case, I wasn’t clear enough (I believe that when I am trying to express a point to you, I am responsible for making my point understood; if you didn’t understand, that’s MY fault, not yours). When I typed “see everything the jury saw”, I meant the 3 days of testimony, not a 5 minute video about the lawsuit. So your video link to a news story doesn’t qualify, and so I didn’t watch it. Until we have video of the trial, we’re all just speculating. Also, statements made to a news camera isn’t sworn testimony subject to the penalties for perjury, so it carries little weight. You won’t go to jail for lying to a reporter, you will for lying in court. Sorry for being unclear.

    #28, – Marc @ #30 probably said enough, but I’ll put my 2 cents of speculation in (probably more like $1.02). What the article states is that when asked to show her breasts, she said no, and it seems this was BEFORE she was exposed. So she didn’t decline consent to having video of herself topless distributed (since they didn’t have any at the time she was asked, she had no need to so decline), she declined to flash the cameraman when asked. They are not the same thing (I know, details, details; but they DO matter). More precisely, I am saying that the statement “declining to disrobe herself at my request while I am videotaping her” is not equal to “declining to allow my distribution of a video of her being disrobed by someone other than me”, especially if she’s already given consent to allow me to distribute any and all video I may have of her (all this assumes that the woman who disrobed her wasn’t me or someone acting for me, and in Jane’s situation, “me” = GGW). She was apparently disrobed without her consent (I’m assuming this wasn’t something cooked up by her and a friend to win a lawsuit lottery). But I think a “reasonable person” would, in such an instance, take some steps to prevent the video from being distributed after she knew GGW had it, even if she declined to call the police on the woman who disrobed her (perhaps because she was a “friend”). She wasn’t disrobed in front of a hidden camera, she was disrobed in front of a man holding a video camera pointed at her, and she knew it. I’ll agree that when she entered the venue in question, she didn’t intend to disrobe. When asked to disrobe, she declined. When she became disrobed, while in front of a camera, and through no action of GGW, did she make any effort to prevent the video from being distributed? I believe if she didn’t take at least minimal steps, in writing (so there’s a paper trail), then there is no proof she didn’t extend her consent to this particular sequence via her inaction at the time of the incident. I know that we cannot tell from the linked articles everything she did or did not do after the video was taken. But I also believe that, if she had taken steps to prevent the distribution of the video, it would have been reported because of the extra sensation it would have caused (especially in the Jezebel article, which refers to GGW as “smut peddlers”). Stories about the big bad company screwing the little guy (or in this case, gal) sell well, both in the media and to juries. Interesting that the jury didn’t go for it this time, which induces me to speculate that they heard details in the 3 days of testimony that led them to believe that, at the time of the incident, Jane was apparently OK with the video being distributed with her topless footage.

    I had a lot more details about my thoughts on the above after this, but managed to bring myself to delete them for the sake of brevity.

    #34, if GGW pulled down her top, but she STILL didn’t do anything to prevent the video’s distribution, my opinion doesn’t change. Why should it matter WHO pulled her top down? If she did it herself, a friend did it, or a stranger did it, I think a “reasonable person” would conclude that not attempting to prevent the video’s distribution constitutes consent.

    Presumably, if the person who pulled down Jane’s top was a GGW staffer, then she was a stranger to Jane (assumption because GGW in the past was a roving show). I think that, in any venue (whether it’s the mall food court, a football game, or a bar where GGW is videotaping), when a stranger pulls down a woman’s top (this is at least sexual misconduct, possibly sexual assault), and she does nothing about it at the time, a “reasonable person” would conclude that she was OK with the exposure. If she knows she’s being videotaped at the time, and if she doesn’t take steps to prevent distribution after she knows the video exists (after all, she can’t decline consent if she doesn’t know about the video), a reasonable person would conclude that she was OK with the distribution. Jane could easily have called the police, filed a complaint against the woman who pulled her top (and I presume that if this woman was a GGW staffer, it is likely she’s not a friend of Jane, so there’s little incentive for Jane to NOT file a complaint), gotten the video tape confiscated as evidence, and had plenty of time to prevent the tape from being distributed in a legally binding way (she’d have had a LOT of leverage against GGW if GGW pulled her shirt down). A written agreement to not distribute plus a minor monetary settlement could probably have been obtained out of court in return for no further action against GGW for the assault. I don’t know why Jane would NOT do at least this, in such a situation, and the articles don’t explain what she did one way or the other so we’re left to speculate. But if we accept the premise that GGW pulled her shirt down, and she did nothing at the time (within a few business days) about this action, I think it is reasonable to conclude that what happened is she waited for the video to make money, and then went for that lawsuit lottery win.

    #47 I would say that failure to file a complaint against the person who pulled Jane’s top down is NOT damaging to her credibility now, if the woman who did so was her friend. I say it is damaging to her credibility now if the person was a stranger. You appear to think it doesn’t matter, or that if a person can envision ONE situation in which they think such behavior damages her credibility, they MUST think that there are ZERO situations that don’t damage her credibility. This is fallacious reasoning. The problem is that the articles don’t say one way or the other, so we can only speculate. But you appear to feel that speculation that doesn’t agree with your views are invalid for that reason alone.

    The reason that “thousands of people” get exposed by others in public or semi-public places and very few victims file charges isn’t because the idea is ridiculous. It’s because the majority of such cases are done by the victim’s friends, and for whatever reason the victim values the friendship enough to ignore the embarrassment caused in order to keep their friend out of trouble. I would expect that the vast majority of the cases in which charges are filed the perpetrator was a stranger to the victim.

    As to a civil suit being unreasonable because there’s no compensatory damages possible, Jennifer Anniston successfully sued a photographer for taking and publishing photos of her topless when she was topless WILLINGLY (although there was some question about where she was, where the photographer had to be to get the photo, and her expectations of privacy). She is currently suing another photographer for getting photos of her, again, willingly topless, while he was standing on a public sidewalk (and as Radley has mentioned time and again, the courts have repeatedly stated that anyplace you can legally stand, you can legally photograph what you can see). Her lawyer must think he’s got a chance or why would her waste his time (and perhaps, her money? So I think you’re mistaken that someone who was unwillingly exposed in public couldn’t win compensatory damages is incorrect.

  74. #74 |  Dave Krueger | 

    Elemenope, I think you’re making shit up as you go. Being in a crowd of people where there is no expectation of privacy, you have very little control over who photographs what unless you own the place. When you give consent, you’re not saying yes, with a list of exceptions after it. Not only was this woman in public with no expectation of privacy, she actually played up to the camera.

    The moment you step out in public you are fair game for anyone who wants to photograph you (with or without a consent form) and their right to do it doesn’t end when you tell them not to (even if you’re a cop, I might add).

    That I need point this out is itself a measure of how ridiculous this discussion has become, but when I said “consent, I wasn’t referring to intercourse. I was referring to being photographed. In any case, being photographed in a public place is not like sexual assault, so your comparison is way off the mark.

    The villain in all of this, whether anyone wants to acknowledge it or not, is the person who pulled down Jane Doe’s top.

    If you people think someone has the right to prevent publication of a video taken of them in a public place simply by saying “no”, then you might as well kiss all videos of cops goodbye. You can’t argue it both ways.

  75. #75 |  Elemenope | 

    So riddle me this, Mr. Krueger, why do companies like GGW bother with things like consent releases? Do they just like doing paperwork, or perhaps is there something a touch more complicated than photography-in-a-public-place going on here?

  76. #76 |  ClassAction | 

    #70

    So then sexually assaulting someone by pulling down their top is NOT the same activity as someone voluntarily agreeing to pull down their top and expose their breasts, and the measure of damages is NOT a t-shirt that would have otherwise been given to a willing participant? Because that’s what you suggested in your other post – that her damages were minimal because those that do it voluntarily receive de minimis compensation.

  77. #77 |  Dave Krueger | 

    #75 Elemenope

    So riddle me this, Mr. Krueger, why do companies like GGW bother with things like consent releases? Do they just like doing paperwork, or perhaps is there something a touch more complicated than photography-in-a-public-place going on here?

    They help prevent court cases. A standard consent form is much more of a blanket permission than what is assumed by the person on the street. By signing it, someone is relinquishing almost all their rights to control the work, but there are also releases that are more restrictive for people like models and celebrities. They can be used as a tool to verify that someone is of age.

    My point is that saying “no” does not override someone’s right to photograph you. And, permission can be conveyed in ways other than a written statement.

  78. #78 |  Elemenope | 

    By signing it, someone is relinquishing almost all their rights to control the work

    But in your main line of argument, you suggest that they never had any rights to control the work in the first place, on the theory that they were in public, they got their picture (or video) taken. So which is it?

  79. #79 |  Dave Krueger | 

    #78 Elemenope

    By signing it, someone is relinquishing almost all their rights to control the work

    But in your main line of argument, you suggest that they never had any rights to control the work in the first place, on the theory that they were in public, they got their picture (or video) taken. So which is it?

    There is a whole range of uses of photographic work. Some of those uses are better protected with a release. If you take a picture of a fashion model’s head and transfer it to to an obese person’s body, you’d better have a release. But simply photographing the fashion model in public does not need a release.

  80. #80 |  Dave Krueger | 

    #66 Alex

    You seem to be taking the line of the foreman, who thinks that being at a bar where GGW is filming is the same as consenting to being filmed naked.

    I’m saying that I don’t think she even has the right to tell them who and what they can or can’t film. Her option is to stay or leave. Apparently, in the jury’s judgment, the fact that she chose to stay (and even dance for the camera) knowing the nature of the activity going on there constitutes permission.

  81. #81 |  Elemenope | 

    So, um, would you say that a person has a reasonable privacy interest in keeping their naughty bits covered in public? If so, photos of someone who is naked against their will in public might not be protected, especially if you intend to commercialize the images.

  82. #82 |  Don’t Date Robots! « Automatic Ballpoint | 

    [...] Via The Agitator. [...]

  83. #83 |  Dave Krueger | 

    Elemenope, I think I’ve made my perspective about it as clear as possible. People can legally photograph you in public whether you like it or not. GGW recorded what happened in front of their cameras in public and published it. News organizations do it all the time and they also profit from it. Part of the price of a free press is that what happens in public can be construed to be fair game for public dissemination. This site thrives on stories about cops who have been recorded in in public against their expressed wishes. Our argument is that they have no expectation of privacy in public and we’re right. If you want to pick and choose who should and shouldn’t have privacy rights in public go for it, but don’t be surprised when someone else chooses differently and passes a law to enforce it.

  84. #84 |  Bob | 

    ClassAction:

    #70 (That would be me)

    So then sexually assaulting someone by pulling down their top is NOT the same activity as someone voluntarily agreeing to pull down their top and expose their breasts, and the measure of damages is NOT a t-shirt that would have otherwise been given to a willing participant? Because that’s what you suggested in your other post – that her damages were minimal because those that do it voluntarily receive de minimis compensation.

    You are clearly confusing 2 separate conversations in the same thread.

    You also fail to comprehend the difference between “Assault”, “Battery”, and “Misconduct”. I will explain.

    “ASSAULT” is ACTUAL FUCKING THREAT OF INJURY. Assault is a crime that requires no physical contact, as in “Armed Assault” where you coerce someone out of their property (or dignity) by pointing a gun at them. Assault is huge, it implies mortal threat. This is usually felony grade shit.

    “BATTERY” is PHYSICAL CONTACT OR INJURY THEREOF. Battery is when you punch someone or otherwise cause injury without a weapon. Usually a misdemeanor.

    “MISCONDUCT” is a lesser form of battery where the intent is not to injure.

    The crime in question is “Sexual Misconduct in the first degree” as defined in the state of Missouri. It’s a misdemeanor. There is no injury involved, and no charges were filed. Since no charges were filed, there is no plaintiff. GGW is off the hook for that.

    There was no ‘assault’. Your use of the term demeans victims who were actual victims of assault.

    So what DID actually happen? Well, the woman was there at the party, declined permission to film her boobs, then shook her boobs for the camera before being subjected to the previously mentioned Sexual Misconduct where a boob was uncovered.

    Said boob was then filmed and that was that.

    The jury’s point (And it is, in my opinion, valid) was that she was ALREADY shaking her boobs for the camera in a skimpy top and thus, that implied permission to film her boobs.

  85. #85 |  Elemenope | 

    The jury’s point (And it is, in my opinion, valid) was that she was ALREADY shaking her boobs for the camera in a skimpy top and thus, that implied permission to film her boobs.

    How does implied consent for one activity indicate consent for related activities? So far as I know, consent legally doesn’t work that way; if you’re kissing someone, it doesn’t mean they consent to you taking their shirt off; if they’re stripping for you, it doesn’t mean they consent you touching them. How does dancing with a shirt on equate with dancing with a shirt off?

  86. #86 |  Dave Krueger | 

    #85 Elemenope

    How does implied consent for one activity indicate consent for related activities?

    Filming is one activity. Her behavior was construed by the jury as consent to be filmed. When you consent to be filmed, it doesn’t come with a guaranty that you will later be able to edit out the stuff you don’t like.

  87. #87 |  Maria | 

    Aren’t there specific laws governing consent to the use of ones likeness in a commercial product? As in she explicitly denied her consent to have her exposed likeness (but not her clothed likeness, she said yes to her clothed likeness) appear in any of GGW commercial products? GGW is a commercial venture, not a citizen journalist or a hobbiest photographer taking some shots at a concert.

    The reason she was being filmed was so GGW could use her likeness in a commercial product. She was asked to expose more of that likeness but declined. She was then forced to show this likeness anyways. Yes, forced. It wasn’t GGW’s fault that her top came down, but it was GGW’s fault for editing the footage and selling it despite her lack of consent.

    This isn’t really about taking a picture of someone in public. Once an entity uses the footage in a commercial product don’t different legal gray areas kick in? And once the entity edits out explicit verbal decline of consent – they are in trouble. Or should have been in trouble.

    Juries have the ability to award damages right? They could have awarded her damages more in line with a reasonable award. But them essentially saying that her consent to the use of her likeness in commercial products ends as soon as she walks out her own door … is degrading and violating.

    It almost feels like the jury was punishing her for having “acted up” and “been foolish” when she was younger. So yes, with the info available, it definitely feels like people are saying “she asked for it” like they do to rape victims who wear short skirts.

    “You are in a bar? With cameras rolling? Whatever happens to you is fair game to sell.” Really? That is one messed up world we are building.

  88. #88 |  Cynical in CA | 

    #48 | ClassAction

    You missed my point then, Class Action. These particular jury members DID speak for the City of St. Louis, or whatever jurisdiction they represented. Juries don’t consist of all members of a jurisdiction. A representative sample of the population is chosen to speak for the jurisdiction. As such, their opinion is the only one that matters in this case — ergo, that is the opinion of the City of St. Louis or whatever.

    Of course, Joe Schmoe from St. Louis can think the jury was idiotic or whatever, but that does not change the fact that the jury speaks for the City.

    This is the cornerstone of the American justice system.

  89. #89 |  TDR | 

    Waaaaay too much discussion of law and GGW (whatever the hell that is) and not nearly enough of the awesome Comic Con protest.

  90. #90 |  Boyd Durkin | 

    Still no answer to the eternal question?

    “Magnets, how do they work”?

    You really need to write it as “Fucking magnets! How do they work?” to be true to the Idiotic Clown Posse.

  91. #91 |  Boyd Durkin | 

    TDR,

    GGW (whatever the hell that is)…

    Riiiiiiiight.

  92. #92 |  Big_Texan | 

    @ #89

  93. #93 |  Big_Texan | 

    oops, I meant to say, @#89, that sex with robots and that awesome comic-con protest; My geeky heart is bursting with love!

Leave a Reply