(August 2, 2010 at 5:11 am)Skeptisma Wrote: 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.No, it's not clear, but the evidence certainly points to her not wanting to take her top off. She is showing her cleavage, but that's all she goes for. She actively covers herself up after the woman pulls down her shirt, a sign that she is uneasy with her breasts being on show. Thirdly, she testified that she did not want her top pulled down.
Quote: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.She originally knew nothing about the filming was what I meant. She went out to a club with friends; she didn't go there because GGW were filming there. That was a happy coincidence. However, she was perfectly fine with dancing in front of the camera; I'm sure most people would be at a nightclub.
As for removing herself from the situation; she shouldn't have to. She has every right to be there and enjoy the evening. Like I said, she was fine with the filming, but she was unaware of what they were there to do. She had no idea they were going to pull her top down, so she had no reason to think that moving out of the "situation" was a good idea. The "situation" hadn't happened yet.
Quote: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.She has every right to sue the filmmakers because they made money out of her misfortune. They turned a crime against her into a movie, and sold it without her permission. I do not know the law regarding this, but I would suspect it is illegal to make money off of someone without their knowledge or agreement, and illegal to sell what would probably be classified as "soft-core" porn without the permission of the parties involved.
Quote:"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?No, because she didn't realize at the time it would be turned into a film and sold to people around the world. Of course it caused harm; when she found out she was emotionally upset. So would you be, if someone had filmed a crime against yourself and sold it for millions.
Quote: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?I never said they were responsible for pulling her top off. They were, however, responsible for (a) filming the event, (b) getting the permission of everyone to use the footage, and © making sure that everyone knew they were going to make money out of the film.
Nobody cries foul at the filming of murder of civilians in Iraq, probably because the footage is aired in America and the UK, and not on Iraqi television. I predict though, that if you were to find the widow of one of the civilians killed, and told them that someone had made a lot of money out the film of their loved one's death, they would sue the filmmaker as well.
Crimes don't cease to be crimes just because nobody reports them or tries to sue because of them.
