Woman loses lawsuit over "Girls Gone Wild" video.

[Tiberius]

The justice system did not fail. I say it performed magnificently. As others pointed out, no one here was on the jury. The jury heard (saw) the evidence and ruled accordantly. Justice was served. There was no victim.

Whilst in your head, juries are omnipotent forces who cannot possibly be wrong about anything, the same cannot be said about reality. Juries make bad rulings all the time; some of them minor, some of them major. As for the evidence; we saw it too. Scented Nectar posted a link to the video of her dancing; and both her and I posted screenshots.

The other evidence was the lack of consent forms on the part of the company, and the witness testimony. Why you decide to take the side of a company in this instance is quite beyond me. It seemed clear to some of us here that this woman was trying to have a fun night out with her friends; was the unfortunate victim of an assault (and her knowing the woman responsible does nothing to change that by the way), and had this assault filmed and sold for profit against her knowledge, and without her permission.

The jury made remarks about the case which fly in the face of the evidence, rather than being supported by it. This is why so many people are angry, and why so many people are making petitions about it. The case isn't as simple as you think, and justice wasn't served.

Just because you like the ruling doesn't make it right, and just because we don't like the ruling doesn't make it wrong. That was never the argument. The argument from our position comes from the evidence; where does yours come from?

[Ashendant]

From tv troopes

In Real Life, this is not comedic at all. Rape is rape regardless of gender; it isn't suddenly made all right by being done to a dude, no matter how much talk there is of All Men Are Perverts and thus are supposed to enjoy free sex. Even worse, there is a prevalent myth that a man can't be raped by a woman, and any man who says he was just wasn't man enough. UK rape law does not in fact account as this being possible

... i can't begin to hate double standards

And according to this guy http://www.vaonline.org/vls6.html 33% of all rape is made by female sexual offenders and it's in fact more damaging than male rapists

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Sure, it is rare, but to say it "never" happens is untrue.

I was making a generalization. I never expected that my statement was 100% true in all cases. As Eilonnwy pointed out, I was more trying to point out the gender stereotypes present in today's court system in almost the same way hollywood movies and juries are prejudiced in many ways with gender stereotypes that can dangerously affect people in bad circumstances.

Look at pedophilia and the attacks you see on an older person on a younger person.
Which predator gets the bigger punishment in most court sytems?

The older man that lures a little girl into his home for a good time?
The older woman that lures a little boy to her home for a good time?

Let's say that neither child consented. The older people are in their forties or fifties and the 'children' are pre-teens - 12~13 years old. Let's say the boy acts like he enjoyed his time but the girl was more traumatized by the event but they are both mentally scarred by everything that happened as many victims are?

Which predator gets punished worse? I suspect I know the answer to this question.
In any case, this was the point I was attempting to make. There are double standards everywhere in the law and, depending on where you look, either gender can be treated whereas in all matters, it should not.

You are not the first women I've ever heard not "get it" when it comes to what men really want and need from women. I absolutely hate the stereotype of men as unrestrainedly horny beasts in a perpetual state of rut. It bites us both ways. First, any sexual accusation toward us is automatically believed. And, second, a whole lot of women have totally lost track of the connection between their part of the mating dance and men's response. Thus we get women playing turn-on games with no intention whatsoever of following through - so that they can play the victim - at the same time we have women who really do deal with us as though we were flesh and blood vibrators who should "turn on" just because they show up and want us turned on.

Dotard...
I don't even know where to begin to respond to this mess.
You seem to be mixing some partly right things (the stereotypes against men you mentioned are present in movies, commercials, trial juries, and teleivision), partly wrong (most people who date other people know this is just a stupid stereotype that isn't true).

Still, your statements regarding the female-male relationship is overly simplistic and completely dependant on one or more of the pair to not understand or have realistic expectations of what their partner wants and needs.
I've been in a lot of relationships and I know many people who've dated, married, and are single.
Not one of them has been disfunctional in the manner you describe. Perhaps it's the people I know, the area in which I live, or the women I myself have dated, but if there's one thing I can know to be true is that sex is never that simple and men want a relationship with someone they want to love just as much as women do and women like sex just as much as men.

Right in whos definition of "Right"? You say "Not right" I say "Right". Right/Wrong is relative.

YOU deem it 'right' or 'wrong' therefore it is. Basic logical fallacy here, one of the easiest to see.

That's how the justice system gets improved in a manner in which it can be better served. When it fails, is wrong, so either future trials can avoid being wrong in the future (if the law was ignored) or the law can be changed to meet the needs of the people.

In this case, the law on the matter was ignored. It doesn't matter how. It doesn't matter why.
The trial still resulted in a ruling that allowed GGW to film someone without their permission and use that film illegally.

There's no two ways about it. That is the law when making movies because I can tell you if a movie was made where Nicole Kidman appears in that movie without that actresses' permission (say they put her digital likeness on another actress or used old footage), she has the legal right to sue the movie and have action taken against the people that made that movie. That's why they always ask permission first.

They used her image without her permission. This is a crime. GGW violated the law.

[Autumnlicious]

I'd need you to cite the "law" that they violated, Syn. First off, we are dealing with civil as opposed to criminal matters, here. Were it a criminal matter the district attorney would have brought the case.

http://public.findlaw.com/consumer/unaut...ernet.html

I've submitted a question relating to film and unauthorised use of imagery, but this is one tangentially related bit. It popped up info specific to my region, so your mileage may vary,

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

I've submitted a question relating to film and unauthorised use of imagery, but this is one tangentially related bit. It popped up info specific to my region, so your mileage may vary,

I'm glad you brought this up because I've been really lazy about doing research.

In any case, here appears to be the relevantly violated portion:

Another reason to stop the use is known as the right of publicity. This occurs if your image is used for commercial purposes such as to sell products or to imply that you endorse a product. If the photo is used in a commercial website -- that is, one sponsored by a business or that sells products or services -- the unauthorized use of your image would probably violate your right of publicity. The public must be able to identify you in the photograph.

Granted, this is internet-based law, but if I'm not mistaken, this law was actually derieved from the same law concerning movies, videos, and that sort of thing.

[Scented Nectar]

Someone commented on Pharyngula that since ggw didn't put her on any ads or dvd covers, the endorsing thing didn't count legally.

[Ashendant]

There are never male victims in sex crimes.

Men can't be raped by women because women don't have the 'equipment' and of course he was asking for it because he had an erection.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=wom...raping+man

Sure, it is rare, but to say it "never" happens is untrue.

I can assure you it's not rare, it's just kept in secret more than female rape, due to double standards, it's not considered illegal in some countries... and it's far sicker than female rape

[Eilonnwy]

I can assure you it's not rare, it's just kept in secret more than female rape, due to double standards, it's not considered illegal in some countries... and it's far sicker than female rape

While deplorable, I agree, I wouldn't even compare it to female rape. I think there's no point in getting into which rape is worse. They're all horrific.