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 |  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.

  2. #2 |  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.

  3. #3 |  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.

  4. #4 |  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.

  5. #5 |  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.

  6. #6 |  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?

  7. #7 |  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.

  8. #8 |  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.

  9. #9 |  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.

  10. #10 |  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

  11. #11 |  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.

  12. #12 |  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.

  13. #13 |  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.

  14. #14 |  Joe | 

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

  15. #15 |  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.

  16. #16 |  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.

  17. #17 |  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.

  18. #18 |  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.

  19. #19 |  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”?

  20. #20 |  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.

  21. #21 |  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.

  22. #22 |  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.

  23. #23 |  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.

  24. #24 |  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.

  25. #25 |  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?

  26. #26 |  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.

  27. #27 |  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.

  28. #28 |  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?

  29. #29 |  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.

  30. #30 |  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.

  31. #31 |  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.

  32. #32 |  Don’t Date Robots! « Automatic Ballpoint | 

    […] Via The Agitator. […]

  33. #33 |  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.

  34. #34 |  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.

  35. #35 |  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?

  36. #36 |  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.

  37. #37 |  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.

  38. #38 |  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.

  39. #39 |  TDR | 

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

  40. #40 |  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.

  41. #41 |  Boyd Durkin | 

    TDR,

    GGW (whatever the hell that is)…

    Riiiiiiiight.

  42. #42 |  Big_Texan | 

    @ #89

  43. #43 |  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!