I'm sure if someone snapped a photo and posted it AND she actually had some legal recourse, she would pusue it. I agree about her not having an issue with the assault, though.

I agree she could have made a smarter choice. Although, if this verdict holds up, I guess she couldn't.

But it is in a public setting.. There is no expectation of privacy, especially when you are at a place filming live video for ggw.. The only person she should be going after is the guy that did it to her, but she is not worried about that it seems..

And for her underage, I am sure that is not an issue, because it means she probably provided fake identification, maybe her drunk ass signed the waiver under a fake name..

The judges decision will probably be overturned.. Unless that guy was an employee of ggw that assaulted her, but why is she not saying she was assaulted..

According to what's in the OP, it was a chick...

/waits patiently for the "niiiiiice" comments from those that missed that tid-bit of info. :p

Say what you will about the incident, I'm just disgusted by the amount awarded. 5.8 million? People with serious bodily injury don't get that kind of money often when they sue. We're talking about a pair of tits? Seriously? And whoever said they made millions or billions off her is just wrong. No one's buying the dvd if it only featured this troll.

Seems like the contracting agency is in trouble then unless their contract stipulated yanking down girls tops.. Of course she is not suing for assault..

According to a few other reports that I just read online, she was dancing flirtatiously in the bar and this drew the attention of GGW to her. The contracted lady then proceeded to tug on her blouse, ultimately exposing her breasts. The original suit was settled in favor of GGW due to them claiming that by her dancing and such, she gave "implied consent".

In addition, I also read that GGW accepts either written or verbal, (on camera), consent. It wasn't until after she was exposed when she said, "no".

Edit: Ohhhhhh, and there's more...

:banghead:

In GGW's defense, that's a lot of money for a flash. If they had walked up to her with a check for a tenth that amount, I'd bet she would have done horrible things on camera and then walked home and happily cashed the check. (I know I would.) And it was foolish of her to ignore the signs, but she was twenty, and twenty-year-olds are foolish.

But. I have no sympathy for Joe Francis. Even if I didn't think he was scum, this is a pittance to him, and the only reasons he hasn't just stroked the check and moved on are publicity, and the hopes that another thousand girls don't come forward with their hand out, too. I have no problem with a company selling videos of hot girls flashing, but you've got to have some kind of respect for them, and he has none; he'll skim the very edges of the law, use girls up as much as he can, then toss them away with no regrets. He's been doing it for years.

Also, "implied consent" is bullshit, a variation on the "she was asking for it" defense. If I was the judge, I'd uphold it.

Yeah, I'm focusing on the part where she was sexually assaulted, filmed, and had the video sold without her permission by a company that makes billions by selling said videos.

Other then the fact that she is not suing for sexual assault..