News Mo. woman wins $5.8M in 'Girls Gone Wild' case

**kysirsoze** · 04-28-2012, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bugeater

If she isn't pissed about the incident itself then she has no reason to be pissed that it was put on the DVD.

There is no situation you could laugh off in the moment, but would not want to be distributed internationally on DVD?

Also, to the people citing the sign as enough of a warning, I would see that sign and assume as long as I don't flash my (hypothetical) tits, they wouldn't end up on a DVD. I think that's a reasonable assumption. Maybe it wasn't the smartest place to drink, but that doesn't make it her fault.

**Bugeater** · 04-28-2012, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kysirsoze

There is no situation you could laugh off in the moment, but would not want to be distributed internationally on DVD?

Also, to the people citing the sign as enough of a warning, I would see that sign and assume as long as I don't flash my (hypothetical) tits, they wouldn't end up on a DVD. I think that's a reasonable assumption. Maybe it wasn't the smartest place to drink, but that doesn't make it her fault.

I don't really see what the difference is in a bar full of random people seeing her tits and a bunch of random people seeing them on a DVD. Someone in the bar could've just as easily snapped a picture of them and posted them on the internet. Just seems odd that she is outraged about her tits being on a DVD and appears to have no issue with the fact that she was sexually assaulted.

**kysirsoze** · 04-28-2012, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bugeater

I don't really see what the difference is in a bar full of random people seeing her tits and a bunch of random people seeing them on a DVD. Someone in the bar could've just as easily snapped a picture of them and posted them on the internet. Just seems odd that she is outraged about her tits being on a DVD and appears to have no issue with the fact that she was sexually assaulted.

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.

Valiant · 04-28-2012, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kysirsoze

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.

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..

**Lumpy** · 04-28-2012, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Valiant

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...

Quote:

Earlier court testimony indicated that a woman acting as a contractor for "Girls Gone Wild" pulled down Favazza's shirt at the shoulder strap, exposing her breasts.

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

Valiant · 04-28-2012, 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumpy

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.

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..

**Lumpy** · 04-28-2012, 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Valiant

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".

Quote:

"Through her actions, she gave implied consent," O'Brien said. "She was really playing to the camera. She knew what she was doing."

Read more: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/m...#ixzz1tPBH3Jpy

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...

Quote:

Defendants noted there were signs all over the bar stating how the footage obtained that night would be used. Favazza claimed she didn't read them. She also believed no one would be "stupid enough" to use the footage without her consent. http://news.yahoo.com/girls-gone-wil...215900618.html

**Lumpy** · 04-28-2012, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kysirsoze

There is no situation you could laugh off in the moment, but would not want to be distributed internationally on DVD?

Also, to the people citing the sign as enough of a warning, I would see that sign and assume as long as I don't flash my (hypothetical) tits, they wouldn't end up on a DVD. I think that's a reasonable assumption. Maybe it wasn't the smartest place to drink, but that doesn't make it her fault.

Let's say that you're a woman and you go to a strip club w/ your husband. This isn't just any strip club either, we're talking full nudity. Before entering the establishment you notice a sign that states that females entering the club could be pulled on stage and stripped down.

Do you, (a) walk in and hope it doesn't happen, or (b) turn around and not chance having your reputation destroyed? I mean, hell, a co-worker or boss could be at that club. Awkwarddddd.

My point is, signs are posted for a reason. But, like I stated earlier, I do agree that GGW had no right to include her in the video because they didn't have her authorization to do so. If the verdict isn't overturned, then good for her. Perhaps she could use the money to get some color added to her areolas.

**kysirsoze** · 04-28-2012, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumpy

Let's say that you're a woman and you go to a strip club w/ your husband. This isn't just any strip club either, we're talking full nudity. Before entering the establishment you notice a sign that states that females entering the club could be pulled on stage and stripped down.

Do you, (a) walk in and hope it doesn't happen, or (b) turn around and not chance having your reputation destroyed? I mean, hell, a co-worker or boss could be at that club. Awkwarddddd.

My point is, signs are posted for a reason. But, like I stated earlier, I do agree that GGW had no right to include her in the video because they didn't have her authorization to do so. If the verdict isn't overturned, then good for her. Perhaps she could use the money to get some color added to her areolas.

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