Douchebag Decree: Girls Gone Wild and Jane Doe's jury of leers

[roxiejules]

The "she asked for it" excuse -

http://bitchmagazine.org/post/douchebag-decree-Girls-Gone-Wild-and-Jane-Does-jury-of-leers+


When a jury basically says "you were asking for it" in legalese, you know it's bad. That's what Jane Doe heard when last week a St. Louis court that decided that "playing to the camera" meant revoking her right to privacy.

Jane Doe was seeking $5 million after learning that that footage of her breasts--exposed by someone else while the cameras rolled--appeared in the Girls Gone Wild movie Sorority Orgy. Awkwardly, Doe found out about her involvement in the film when her husband's friend told them after watching the 2004 video. (It appears Doe did not receive typical GGW compensation--a t-shirt).

Doe did not give consent to show her breasts--in fact, her saying "No, no," and mouthing "I can't," is also conveniently caught on camera. But did the Girls Gone Wild film company choose to honor her verbal objection? Of course not, that would be the non-douchey, respecting-women thing to do.

Doe went to court over the video, but after ninety minutes of deliberation, the jury did not find that she deserved compensation (the $5 million figure was derived from Sorority Orgy's projected $10 million gross). From STLToday.com (emphasis added):

Patrick O'Brien, the jury foreman, told a reporter 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."

Told of that reasoning, the tearful woman said, "I was having fun until my top was pulled off. And now this thing is out there for the world to see forever."

Which all shows very clearly how the signifiers we're taught about "slutty" behavior hold up in court, and that a woman saying "No," and "I can't," and not signing a release form do not stand up in court as "consent." That an "implied consent" read by others somehow trumps the woman's own assertion to bodily autonomy is frightful indeed. Garrison even uses the fact that Doe's time on camera "lasts less than 20 seconds" as a way to invalidate her right to control over her body, and that she should just put up with uncompensated, non-consensual sexual assault by a multi-million dollar Girls Gone Wild company.

[Chulanowa]

1. This jury needs their asses kicked

I hope that Jane Doe gets an appeal. if she did not sign a waiver agreeing to have her footage put in the video, then that footage should have been left out, plai nand simple. This is even without going into the amazingly exploitative nature of the "Girls Gone Whild" series i nthe first place with its reliance on drunken consent.

[Initech]

2. I'm a guy and I think the GGW guy is a huge douchebag of epic proportions.

[roxiejules]

12. Francis sounds like a sociopath

Just read this from LA Times...

http://articles.latimes.com/2006/aug/06/magazine/tm-gonewild32

He sees "Girls Gone Wild" as the ultimate lifestyle brand. "Sex sells everything," he says. "It drives every buying decision . . . I hate to get too deep and philosophical here, but only the guys with the greatest sexual appetites are the ones who are the most driven and most successful."

[Initech]

15. He is certainly right about that.

Personally I like what Bill Hicks said: "Supreme Court declares pornography as no artistic merit, causes sexual thought. Hmmm.... sounds like every commercial on television!"

[Fearless]

3. There is no question that the founder of GGW is an asshat

However, I don't think the woman should get money out of this either. She was being dumb too. Two wrongs don't make a right. Also however, he should not be allowed to profit off of videos of those who agreed to something while inebriated. He shouldn't be legally allowed to video anyone doing anything without their clear consent being of sound body and mind. Period.

[Hello_Kitty]

4. You think she deserved to have her top pulled up against her will and the images sold?

Why? Because she was (gasp!) dancing and drinking?

[Fearless]

5. Didn't read that far...

:banghead:


If they can ascertain that this did in fact happen... Like on tape (:banghead:) then certainly she could be pursuing charges. I'd go for sexual assault myself.


And I did address that I don't think she should have had her photos sold. Nor the cameraman to have taken them. Nor the owner of the company to have a single cent.

[jberryhill]

8. No, but one juror's out of court statement, partially quoted, is probably representative

It would be interesting to know all of the evidence put on at the trial. We don't know what the evidence was.

[jberryhill]

10. Clearly the person who pulled the top should also be a co-defendant

Was that person also named as a defendant?

Why or why not?

[Froward69]

11. I disagree but then I agree also

the founder of GGW simply took spring break vids and sold them. A niche was there and exploited it... thats capitalist.

Jane doe does not deserve a penny. if she was not intending to be on camera (clothed or not) she should not have been in front of the camera to begin with.

GGW does not sneak up on nor exploit anybody. they throw parties in bars and everyone there plays for the camera. continuing to wear your blouses or bras means you wont make the final cut. the BIG SIGN hanging over the entrance (just like concert vids) is the release form. BTW i gave consent just like that for U2's Sunday Bloody Sunday vid.


Now I really have a problem with societies hang up over human Boobs. the founder of GGW already gets sued yearly and is banned from Florida. (some judges daughter showed off hers)

personally I think the GGW vids are dumb. (well except for the skin) but then again it is the skin (because of societies hang up with it) that creates the niche to begin with.

So jane doe's boobs were seen, so were a couple thousand others (x2) so what.


(*)(*) and (.)(.) are lovely but society only tolerates (^)(^) pasties.

[kimmylavin]

13. Yes, but she didn't SHOW her breasts.

They were shown for her... that's sexual assault.

Being in front of a camera fully clothed, and having your shirt pulled up by someone else - while you are clearly saying "no," - are two very different things.
She consented to the first by going in to the bar - sure, why not, I'll give you that - but the further implied consent to nudity/assault? Are you serious?

[jberryhill]

14. We don't have all of the facts

...which is why the discussion is largely pointless.

Whether there were any conditions on admission to the venue is a relevant question, and was likely covered at trial.

My suspicion is that the jury was presented with a richer factual context than the story as reported conveys.

[Froward69]

20. Actually yes i am serious

the big sign above the entrance most likely said "Girls Gone Wild Taping party" or something to that effect. not knowing bare breasts are the norm for GGW is not the fault of GGW. now we do do not know whom pulled up her shirt... it could have been her ex boyfriend or even her now husband. THAT'S the sexual assaulter. not GGW.

[Hello_Kitty]

21. So if I walk into a strip club am I consenting to being forcibly stripped?

After all, women stripping is the norm in those establishments. And if the club sells a video of me being forcibly stripped that's okay too?

[realisticphish]

6. "implied" consent

Can she appeal this? Because this is a frighteningly dangerous precedent, not only in her particuar situation, but in many other legal situations. Is a rape victim guilty because she doesn't fight back enough (after all, that's exactly what the Bible says!)? And even if implied consent were a concept, she said NO. She REFUSED. She actively saying no, and yet they still considered that "implied consent." If she had pulled her own shirt down, there might have been a smidgen of a case, though without a consent form I would still say it's unusable.

But someone ELSE did. What the fuck?

[jberryhill]

9. Yes it can be appealed

No we do not know all of the evidence that was presented to the jury.

[roxiejules]

7. 'Asking for it' video....

Short PSA video from Scotland...mocking the idea that some women are “asking for it”:

http://contexts.org/socimages/2010/07/28/against-asking-for-it-another-anti-rape-ad-aimed-at-men/

[era veteran]

16. Those asshats, GGW, came to a bar close to where I work

They play it like this; They bring their own hot looking chicks and when these young fools are drunk the plants start getting naked causing Muffy & Buffy to think they will too. I used to like Snoop until he pimped for GGW.

[roxiejules]

17. GGW has no respect for women, only money

Very interesting how they planted the chicks, apparently they chose specific men to work the cameras, too -

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Wizard]

19. GGW will probably want it to go to

the United States Supreme Court where every business gets the benefit of the doubt, victims be damned.