Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

cbdo2007

(9,213 posts)

4. That is a good point, should have been an assault charge

Reply to arcane1 (Reply #2)

Tue May 1, 2012, 01:24 PM

May 2012

against the person when it happened if she truly wasn't a willing participant. Maybe she just didn't get paid as much as she was hoping??

I don't have a link but if I remember correctly, the woman claimed she was just hanging out in the bar with friends when someone lifted her shirt for the cameras without her permission. I think the first court said that because she knew filming was going on she should have known that there would be a chance she would be on video, and so just being at the bar made her a willing participant.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

8 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Mo. Woman Wins $5.77M In 'Girls Gone Wild' Suit [View all] cbdo2007 May 2012 OP

I've always said, if you do porn, you deserve to get paid Taverner May 2012 #1

someone else lifted her shirt, she wasn't participating in the cbdo2007 May 2012 #3

Then even MORE reason she should end up with money Taverner May 2012 #7

Interesting... no charges for the person who lifted her shirt? arcane1 May 2012 #2

That is a good point, should have been an assault charge cbdo2007 May 2012 #4

The jury in the first case concluded she had given her implied consent onenote May 2012 #6

Sexual Assault at least Taverner May 2012 #8

Good grief! HappyMe May 2012 #5