Woman loses lawsuit over "Girls Gone Wild" video.

[Eilonnwy]

In His Mind is spot on.

In some states in the U.S., exposing oneself in a public area is a criminal offense defined by state law as indecent exposure, public nudity, or sexual misconduct, etc. One notable exception is New York, where the Court of Appeals held in 1992 that the state constitution's equal protection provision allows women to go topless in any public area where men also have that right.[3] Whereas toplessness in itself may not be grounds for arrest, many of the women featured in Girls Gone Wild commit other acts in public that may be considered lewd and therefore culpable to criminal prosecution.

In response to lawsuits, GGW has argued that women who expose themselves in this manner have no expectation of privacy[4][dead link] The company usually gets women to sign consent forms or give verbal consent with cameras rolling - but not always.[5] In 2010 a Missouri women lost a lawsuit against Mantra Films when a jury found she gave "implied consent" even though her breasts were exposed against her will and she did not sign a consent form.[5]

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girls_Gone_...gal_status

So, obviously no written consent, the video clearly shows her saying no, so no verbal consent. It's pretty damn clear that the Jury got it 100% wrong.

This blog had good commentary on the ruling:

That is assault in my book. The Missouri jury disagrees. When Doe, now married with two little girls, learned of the video, she felt violated. She understandably felt that her reputation had been damaged and proceeded to sue the makers of the video for $5 million. The jury only took 90 minutes to find in favor of the company. In a brilliant display of victim-blaming, the jury foreman Patrick O'Brien had this to say afterwards: "Through her actions, she gave implied consent. She was really playing to the camera. She knew what she was doing."

Let me get this right ... through her "actions" of dancing with her friends, she gave "implied consent" to having her shirt ripped off and then having her attack filmed and distributed for profit by others? It makes a woman wary of going out a letting your hair down at all, if harmless dancing opens you up to that sort of treatment. In response to the foreman's comments, Jane Doe said, "I was having fun until my top was pulled off. And now this thing is out there for the world to see forever."

No means no. What else did the jury have to hear? No amount of flirtatious dancing negates that. This is like the classic she-was-asking-for-it rape defense. Sure, her words said "no," but her skirt/dancing/eyes were saying "yes."

Even Girls Gone Wild usual policy is to obtain written or verbal consent before the cameras start rolling. Clearly, Jane Doe never did. That the company has made money off of her assault — an estimated $1.5 million on that video — is disgusting.

I'll leave you all with Jane Doe's tearful remarks on verdict, since she certainly deserves to have the last word: "I am stunned that this company can get away with this. Justice has not been served. I just don't understand. I gave no consent."

As for people balking at the $5 mil lawsuit, what price would put on being assaulted and having that turn into a sexual exploitation for money? They make millions off of exploiting young drunk women, they would have deserved the hit to their wallet and maybe think twice about using footage where no consent was given. This verbal consent thing is also bullshit, usually it doesn't hold up in court unless it's recorded.