The Lower Quote, As If You Didn't Know, Is By Richard Dawkins, Son.

Monday, July 26, 2010

Girls Gone Wi...Sorry, What?

While checking my usual plethora of blogs today, I came across a link on Skepchick that described a story that sort of melted my head. Go read it and then come back here.

In the shell of a nut, this article describes the case of a Jane Doe who had her breasts exposed by some assclown while another douche was filming a Girls Gone Wild video. Doe was in a club and dancing when, allegedly, she is asked to pull her top down to expose herself whereupon she can be heard to say, "No, no." At this point, another woman reaches up and pulls down her top while she is on camera.

This happened when Jane Doe was 20 and she is now married and with two kids. When she found out that this was part of a Girls Gone Wild video, she sued...and lost. Check this shit out:
Patrick O'Brien, the jury foreman, explained later to reporters that they figured if she was willing to dance in front of the photographer, she was probably cool with having her breasts on film. They said she gave implicit consent by being at the bar, and by participating in the filming - though she never signed a consent form, and she can be heard on camera saying "no, no" when asked to show her breasts.
I can only assume that if Jane Doe was drunk and passed out on a couch in the club, it would be perfectly fine to take her top off and film her. Hell, take all her clothes off and run a train on her, filming all the while for their new flick, Unconscious Drunken Bitches Get Gang-Raped. I mean, she was drunk and sleeping at a BAR for chrissake...she was asking for it.

I've been drunk and dancing at many a bar in my day, and that in no way meant that I was ok with someone pulling my cock out and filming it for mass distribution.

The stupidity of the people on this jury (ok, nine of the twelve) is staggering. I'm assuming that none of those nine have kids, or at least no daughters. I mean, O'Brian was quoted as saying the following:
Through her actions, she gave implied consent...She was really playing to the camera. She knew what she was doing.
Now, how exactly the fuck "playing to the camera" is equated with, "it's ok to take my top off after I say 'no'" is left to the imagination.

Joe Francis, owner of the Girls Gone Wild series, has been in trouble many times before. You'd think that perhaps, I don't know, a precedent of being complete douchetards might colour the proceedings a smidge, but it didn't. It makes me once again question the jury selection process because it certainly seems that dumbasses have fucked up an open and shut case.

Oh, and Chad Garrison at Riverfront Times blog. Fuck you.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

2 Barbaric Yawps:

At 27/7/10 6:35 pm, Anonymous L.Long said...

Xtian influenced culture in america is no different then the radical IsLame-x. A girl appears different then THEIR DEFINITION OF MODEST (which changes from person to person) then its OK to do what you want and it is the girl's fault. This is still going on and has been going on as far back as I can remember (some 60yr. And the compensations that have occurred do not help as females who did questionable activity gets off.
When will people learn that when the no word is used it is NO, even if she meant yes she said no so leave her alone.

 
At 4/10/10 10:26 am, Blogger nazani said...

She might have had better luck suing for modeling fees or royalties from the sale of the film.

If one of the jury members were talking to the press afterwards, I guess it would be ok to pants them, 'cause they were "playing to the camera."

 

Post a Comment

<< Home