Holby, I'm glad you think it doesn't make her guilty, but I can't get behind calling that location harmful. Perhaps especially because a guy wouldn't have to look at it the same way. There is probably more to be aware of when going to a club at night than, say, a mall in the afternoon, just because it's an ultra social environment that involves alcohol. But endangerment? May as well add 'leaving your own house' to the list.
People don't always need
to find themselves in a dark alley, empty parking lot, or other obviously undesirable locations, and so I'd hate to include what is usually a popular business establishment that people happily
get involved with. Unless it's called Mike's House of Rape and Humiliation, the worst anyone should suspect is over-priced drinks and third world bathrooms.
Not to ignore the Girls Gone Wild part of your equation! I just don't know explicit production details. What I have heard is that patrons basically show up and then
find out GGW is filming, so they can either carry on as normal or find another bar. There doesn't seem to be extensive advertising like if an actual movie was being filmed and needed extras. I think even the Westboro guys give more notification when they come to town.
On another site, I read comments that kept referring to GGW as a porno shoot, so the girl was asking for trouble by sticking around. The thing is, if it were
a porn shoot, (
) that means you already have actors and the dirty stuff is there to see. The rest of the crew has their own jobs. It's not like the boom mic operator is getting fondled off-screen by the script supervisor or anything. GGW seems to be some guys with cameras walking around asking ladies if they want to participate, and then giving free t-shirts to those who do. It's closer to a news broadcast than a porno, and in both cases, I'm pretty sure consent is required if they aren't gonna blur anyone out. Except apparently when dancing or cleavage-baring is involved, in which case all forms of debauchery that escalate from there are totally okay.
The person who pulled the girl's shirt down ended up being female, which admittedly made me less steamed, but changes nothing about the inappropriateness of keeping it on the videotape or the fact that she friggin' said 'no'
*E*, if it can be shown that a previous trial was deeply fucked up, a new one may be ordered.
I understand that in general, but it does make me wonder how this one was presented, or if it mostly boiled down to an idiotic jury.
How many other people have gotten screwed over for those precise reasons? Was "dancing for the camera" and "knowing what she was doing" used as evidence of her consent? Did Jane Doe's lawyer not call bullshit on that one?
For a bit of comparison, anyone hear about this new viral video featuring a woman falling into a fountain while texting?
I don't know how it got from the security tapes to national news, but both women had similar experiences otherwise imo. Allowing oneself to be distracted by a cell phone? Not so smart. Though you'd probably think the consequences were stubbing a toe or running into somebody, as opposed to crashing your car or falling off a roof (being extreme examples). Did she know there was a fountain in the building? Did Jane Doe eventually know Girls Gone Wild were filming at the bar? Yes, but neither deserved to fall, or get their chest exposed. Their only real lapses in judgment were texting and drinking, respectively, which hindered their reaction time when faced with that ledge, or that camera.
GGW is profiting from Jane's humiliation whereas the only victim in fountain girl's case is her pride, but it is the former I have all sympathy for. The latter's court case is at least about why security did not arrive to help, as opposed to suing the mall in general, but I still place all blame on her actions and it has nothing to do with her gender. She was
being stupid. Jane Doe, perhaps, was just being naive.