Woman sues UF fraternity brothers for videotaping sexual encounter - Page 2

#1 08-01-2008, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin

If everyone could help me police this thread, I'd appreciate it if you report anything which might help identify this woman. I think that she's entitled to her privacy. If she truly was damaged, I would hate to add to any of that by being a party to further publication of something which is ordinarily a very private thing.

If we can't keep things under control, I'll have to delete the thread.

Or you could move it to News and Politics and not have to deal with it.

And what Senusret I said.

Whatever, Kevin.

Thanks for removing the links.

Good thing people know how to search Facebook and MySpace on their own. That, you cannot moderate.

Kevin · #2 08-01-2008, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OTW

Or you could move it to News and Politics and not have to deal with it.

And what Senusret I said.

I think it's a reasonable RM issue.

I remember a nearby chapter of my organization having an issue like this in the 90's which did some serious damage to their chapter.

Kevin · #3 08-01-2008, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OTW

Good thing people know how to search Facebook and MySpace on their own. That, you cannot moderate.

All I can control is this forum.

Search Myspace and Facebook to your heart's content.

#4 08-01-2008, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin

All I can control is this forum.

Thank God for that.

SWTXBelle · #5 08-01-2008, 10:49 PM

Back in the day, our pledges were instructed to never go up to a guy's room in a fraternity house. I'm thinking we were onto something there . . .

la_boca_loca · #6 08-03-2008, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin

If everyone could help me police this thread, I'd appreciate it if you report anything which might help identify this woman.

Ok, then: Ft. Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, Palm Beach Post, Chicago Times... yada, yada, yada. First of all, this was not a sex crime. So the girl has no statutory right to have her name withheld. Further, SHE chose to go public with a frivolous lawsuit.

Kevin · #7 08-03-2008, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by la_boca_loca

Ok, then: Ft. Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, Palm Beach Post, Chicago Times... yada, yada, yada. First of all, this was not a sex crime. So the girl has no statutory right to have her name withheld. Further, SHE chose to go public with a frivolous lawsuit.

Her name is okay. Other details which are not already in major media sources or gleaned from court records are not okay.

Senusret I · #8 08-01-2008, 10:03 PM

Lauren Highley has filed a civil suit. Her name is listed in the initial article. Can we not even discuss the article?

Kevin · #9 08-01-2008, 10:06 PM

Absolutely. That's why this thread is still here.

And I know people can probably find her very easily on Myspace, etc. It's just that if the individual whose profile is being linked to isn't the same Lauren Highley in the article, we could be talking civil liability. Even if it was her, we could still be talking civil liability.

These dignity torts are odd critters and I'm not in a risk-taking mood tonight

Blue Skies · #10 08-01-2008, 11:28 PM

"In May 2007, the men were convicted in Alachua County court of misdemeanor voyeurism and sentenced to 10 days in jail, 50 hours of community service and a year of probation."

Sounds fair to me. But a civil suit on top of that seems excessive. Now if that video hit YouTube, I would say go for it.

I keep trying to tell myself that the frontal lobe of the brain is not fully developed until about age 24 or so. From my textbook: "Full maturation [of the frontal lobe] occurs about a year earlier in females than in males. In other words, the last part of the brain to grow up is the part capable of making rational decisions, understanding the consequences of one's actions, and putting the brakes on emotional impulses."

CrackerBarrel · #11 08-01-2008, 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blue Skies

"In May 2007, the men were convicted in Alachua County court of misdemeanor voyeurism and sentenced to 10 days in jail, 50 hours of community service and a year of probation."

Sounds fair to me. But a civil suit on top of that seems excessive. Now if that video hit YouTube, I would say go for it.

I keep trying to tell myself that the frontal lobe of the brain is not fully developed until about age 24 or so. From my textbook: "Full maturation [of the frontal lobe] occurs about a year earlier in females than in males. In other words, the last part of the brain to grow up is the part capable of making rational decisions, understanding the consequences of one's actions, and putting the brakes on emotional impulses."

I agree, they've been punished criminally and don't appear to have done anything with the video to inflict further emotional damage or distress on the woman.

ETA: In fact it seems to me that she's doing more to further harm her reputation by filing this suit and getting her name and the incident back in the news than they ever could have.

EE-BO · #12 08-02-2008, 12:57 AM

Hi OTW,

I was referring to post #13 by Tinia2. I did not see anything in the article to suggest rape.

Not knowing the facts of the situation first hand, it is hard for me to make any kind of judgement call. But I do think any person (male or female) who willingly goes upstairs and spreads their legs (sober or drunk- assuming they got drunk willingly)- gets what they ask for in this modern high-tech age.

But that does not address the law. Based on what I see here, I do not think this woman has as case- but then again I am not on the jury...

Kevin · #13 08-02-2008, 01:22 AM

EE-BO, I don't know anything about Florida Law, but there is a tort recognized in many states referred to as "invasion of privacy." It requires that the Plaintiff's privacy be intruded upon in a highly offensive way. I think secretly videotaping sex might be such a thing.

EE-BO · #14 08-02-2008, 01:49 AM

That very well could be Kevin from a legal standpoint.

What I am saying is that I have no sympathy for a whore who spreads her legs and then gets it publicized after- even if it is in a legally actionable manner.

If she had behaved like a proper lady in the first place, none of this would have happened.

And any young gentlemen who availed themselves of a female in an inappropriate manner, may- and should, pay the price too.

Noone wins in a case like this, and on the face of the fact presented- I think that is the right outcome. She should not have been a slut, and the guys should not have exploited her by filming the event.

Kevin · #15 08-02-2008, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EE-BO

That very well could be Kevin from a legal standpoint.

What I am saying is that I have no sympathy for a whore who spreads her legs and then gets it publicized after- even if it is in a legally actionable manner.

Because she had sex, she's a whore?

You don't think that adults engaging in consensual, casual sex are entitled to a reasonable expectation of privacy? Are you suggesting that when she had this encounter, she was impliedly consenting to someone hiding in the room with a video camera?

I don't think it's very reasonable to believe that anytime I have sex I should simply resign myself to the fact that it might show up on Youtube.