(August 2, 2010 at 4:49 am)Tiberius Wrote:(August 2, 2010 at 12:24 am)Skeptisma Wrote: I still find it fucking mind-boggling that she didn't have the balls to make sure that shit never saw the light of dvd.She was drunk, she'd already said "no". I don't think she expected it to be on a DVD, since by her own testimony she wasn't there for the filming; she knew nothing about it.
As for not having the balls...once she found out her rights had been violated, she sued the filmmakers. Erm...that's a pretty ballsy move.
Oh, and for everyone saying "why didn't she sue the woman". Yeah, think for a moment; she's drunk, everyone around her is drunk; the woman isn't on camera. At the time she didn't think it would cause any harm, and years later she realizes it did. Good luck finding that woman again.
Again, it's not exactly clear what she said "no" to. Sure, we can speculate it may have been in regards to her taking her top off - but do we know conclusively? No.
If she weren't there for the filming, having a big camera in your face would certainly inform an individual that filming was taking place, yes? If you aren't interested in participating, remove yourself from the situation.
Her "rights" were not violated in one movie, but several. Yet, this is the one she objects to because someone other than GGW pulled her shirt down? She has every right to sue, but they were not the ones that yanked her top off, nor directed her to engage the camera. Maybe they won't find that woman who actually did it, but does that give the plaintiff the right to sue whomever she wants? No.
"At the time she didn't think it would cause any harm..." Well, if it wasn't harmful back then, why is it harmful now? Because she has children that she'll have to explain this to?
The fact that she had her top pulled off is not right - don't get me wrong here. However, when you are dealing with a legal matter it is a completely different story. She decided to sue GGW for the filming of such act and since they were not responsible for her top coming off, they shouldn't be held liable. Another commenter on the Pharyngula blog had an interesting point that basically says: The murder of civilians in Iraq was recently filmed yet no one cried foul on the part of the filmographer in that case. Is this really any different?
