Jenny EriksonRecently a jury denied a young woman's claim that Girls Gone Wild had damaged her reputation by filming her dancing at a bar and having her top pulled down. The woman had been suing the company for $5 million in damages, including the estimated $1.5 million made off the video Girls Gone Wild Sorority Orgy.
The jury foreman, Patrick O'Brien, said, "Through her actions, she gave implied consent ... She was really playing to the camera. She knew what she was doing."
The young woman, now a married mother of two daughters, claimed that she had been having fun until her top was pulled down. Her attorney, Stephen Evans, also argued that she could be heard in the original footage saying "no" to a request to show off her boobies.
"Other girls said it was OK. Not one other one said, 'No, no,'" Evans said. "She is entitled to go out with friends and have a good time and not have her top pulled down and get that in a video."
This young woman made a bad decision. She was only 20 at the time and out at a bar drinking. She was dancing suggestively to the camera. She put herself in a bad situation, obviously. But does that mean she deserved to have her top pulled down against her will so that slime ball Joe Francis could make money off of her?
Even if we take the nudity completely out of the equation, is it ok to film or photograph a person and distribute the image for personal profit, without that person's expressed permission? The jury declared that she had given "implied consent" to have her image and her boobs put on a raunchy video that her future husband's friends might someday watch.
If we start that line of thinking, what can we say about girls who get date-raped? Oh, look what she was wearing; she ordered the lobster; she invited him in; she gave implied consent.
Girls should be much more careful with their actions, but nothing excuses the mistreatment of women.
What do you think? Did Girls Gone Wild take advantage of this woman? Or did she give implied consent?
Photo by Kristen Bons