The story is put succinctly here:
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. Jane Doe, who was 20 at the time the tape was made, is now living in Missouri with her husband and two children. She only found out about the video in 2008, when a friend of her husband's saw the "Girls Gone Wild Sorority Orgy" video and recognized her face. He called up her husband, and in what has got to be the most awkward conversation ever, informed him that his wife's breasts were kinda famous.
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.
Now, I am sure I am not alone in finding this troubling. Very troubling. If nothing else, how does this fit with the idea that we'd all like to put across: that consent is vital when it comes to sex, or sexual matters?
Firstly, I was under the impression that you had to get a consent form for anything appearing in anything (4:56 into this video). Is all that effort for nothing? It would appear to be, and so it seems I can go out and film what I like. You might say that this is a small point in the context of the whole story, and you'd be bloody well right (consider this a run-up), but it does beg the question: "what kind of legal ground is this ruling based on?"
The jury foreman, Patrick O'Brien, explained that it was perfectly justified as "through her actions, she gave implied consent". Implied Consent??! I admit I haven't seen the tape (for fairly obvious reasons), but, by all accounts, she is heard to exclaim "no, no" on being asked to reveal her breasts. Surely any implicit consent is overruled empirically by the CLEAR FUCKING EXPLICIT STATEMENT SHOWING EXPLICITLY A LACK OF CONSENT. It seems that you can be done for a clearly ironic joke because of its literal meaning, but in a case like this, it's all about reading between the lines!*
Ah, wait! I forgot that she was dancing. AT A PARTY! I would say that, on the whole, that is the single most sane place to dance. Honestly, try it anywhere else -- on a plane, for instance, or at a funeral -- and people may reasonably question your motives. But at a party, you're often seen as unusual if you don't dance (believe me).
This decision is a travesty. The only positive that we can take from it is that the incident ended with just the exposure of breasts, rather than anything worse, but it's not hard to see where it could lead. As PZ Myers put it:
If you're willing to dance, you're willing to be stripped of your clothes. And presumably we can carry this a little further and reason that if you're naked in a bar, you've consented to sex, although fortunately it did not go that far in this case.The fact that there are people out there defending this decision -- a decision by jury -- genuinely worries me. I remember when I first heard the phrase "No Means No", I thought it laughable in how obvious it was (I was young, and so didn't really understand what 'rape' was). But if "No" was clear enough then, how on earth did it come to mean "yes" in court?
*I know they're two different courts and countries, but it was hardly the first instance of statements being taken too literally.
UPDATE, 23:51: As Jack of Kent points out on twitter, whilst the story may be accurate, "my experience is there can be a disconnect between the report and what happened", and that "Bad law stories are sadly as common as bad science stories." I feel that this blog covers subjects beyond the individual case reported, but it is an important thing to take into consideration. For proof of misrepresentation of legal cases in the media, check out his excellent series on the McKinnon case.
I watched the video (there was a link in one of the comments at Pharyngula until PZ took it down - so much for basing views on evidence). The supposed "no, no" is inaudible over the pumping dance music and general hollering.
ReplyDeleteApparently also she was in an area of the bar clearly marked as a filming area for Girls Gone Wild. The laws on filming in Missouri apparently don't require a signed release. Unless I missed it in the 1000+ comments at Pharyngula, no-one has suggested that she did anything to stop GGW using the video at the time, and she didn't press any assault charges against the person who pulled her top down (so there's no issue of profiting from a crime, as in the eyes of law no crime occurred). With all that in mind, I don't see how the jury could possibly have found in her favour.
Plus (though it's irrelevant to the legal argument) she sued for a truly ludicrous amount of money.
The video does pose a dilemma. If you want to gather all the evidence, you should watch it, but then, given its sensitive subject matter and the fact that Ms Doe clearly feels uncomfortable about it now (at least), the decent thing would be to keep away. In many ways it wouldn't be possible to decide which was the right course of action until after watching it, and given both this grey area and the pornographic content, I'm not surprised PZ removed it.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that she did nothing at the time doesn't seem to contradict the story reported, as she seemed to not to know about the tape's existence. It's possible she'd forgotten the incident due to drink consumed, or perhaps she didn't realise that she did not need to sign any consent forms. That would, presumably, move it from a legal matter to a moral one, but I would still maintain a moral objection to this incident on the basis of that information.
I know your a femminist and all and so obviously wouldn't watch the video but your basing your information on hear say with no firm evidence. Is it not possible, for instance, that women in question probably was aware of what she was doing at the time then regretted the fact that it got on film then shifted resonsibilities? I don't know, I haven't watched but without you knowing the full story evidencially should you really be commenting in such an aggressive manor. This is what you always tell me to do so take your own advice.
ReplyDelete@Peter: My previous comment explains why I have not watched the video.
ReplyDeleteI think "hearsay" is a very strong term. The original news story is linked to, as are other comments -- this isn't something I heard in a pub. We should be skeptical of its veracity, but not as dismissive as you are being. I am also troubled by your use of the term "probably", which seems to read a lot into her actions, particularly since you seem to be criticising my judgements.