From the comment section on Jezebel:
"I posted this link in my Gmail status and my fiance replied "It's just so weird (of society) that this is the only type of crime that is reacted to in this way. Nobody ever says about a murder victim 'Well maybe he shouldn't have been in that part of town at that time of day.' Or even if they do, the murderer still goes to jail."
I was like YES! YOU GET IT!" ~ Posted by Robotosaur
That sums up how I feel about it.
A jury ruled yesterday against a woman who claimed her reputation was damaged after she was featured on a "Girls Gone Wild" video. What makes this case remarkable is that she didn't expose her own breasts - she was assaulted.
STLToday reports that the woman, identified only as Jane Doe, was dancing in at the former Rum Jungle bar in 2004 when someone reached up and pulled her tank top down, exposing her breasts to the "Girls Gone Wild" camera.
The woman sued Girls Gone Wild for $5 million in damages. After deliberating for just 90 minutes on Thursday, the St. Louis jury came back with a verdict in favor of the smut peddlers. Patrick O'Brien, the jury foreman, explained later to reporters that they figured if she was willing to dance in front of the photographer, she was probably cool with having her breasts on film. They said she gave implicit consent by being at the bar, and by participating in the filming - though she never signed a consent form, and she can be heard on camera saying "no, no" when asked to show her breasts.
I am stunned that this company can get away with this," said Jane Doe after the ruling. "Justice has not been served. I just don't understand. I gave no consent."
So let this be a lesson to us all. "Consent" is a flexible thing - at least in the eyes of the St. Louis courts. No means yes, and assault means it's okay to roll the cameras. If there were ever a time to get righteously angry, it's now.Read more at jezebel.com