Woman sues UF fraternity brothers for videotaping sexual encounter

[CrackerBarrel]

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]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

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 . . .

Thank you for some sane commentary. The guys were stupid to tape this, but she was stupid too- and she is stupid now to try and get some money when she should be hanging her head in shame. I am amazed someone on this thread actually suggested this could be considered rape- get real.

Originally Posted by EE-BO

Thank you for some sane commentary. The guys were stupid to tape this, but she was stupid too- and she is stupid now to try and get some money when she should be hanging her head in shame. I am amazed someone on this thread actually suggested this could be considered rape- get real.

I had to go back and re-read the thread because I missed the suggestion that it could be considered rape.

The article says the sex was consensual. The sex was consensual, the taping of it was not.

I don't know WTF this girl's thinking...especially since she's Facebook buddies with homey on the left. Was it he who frat slammed her? (Frat slammed is not an inappropriate term, Kevin)

[EE-BO]

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]

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]

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.

I'd probably sue them too. I think their sentence was way too light. A person is not allowed to be video taped in a place in which there is perceived privacy. Like rest rooms, changing rooms and bed rooms. If she was having sex in a public area, yeah burn the whore on a stake and sell it to joe francis. But a girl is allowed to have sex with a boy in a bedroom, that's not an illegal thing for her to do no matter what your minister says. So she has every right in the world to ask the court for justice in any way the law deems possible, including a civil suit. And I'm saying she has the right to do it, not that i think everyone should think she's entitled to what she is asking for.

And for everyone who is thinking she shouldn't put herself through any more trauma by doing this, that is really backwards and messed up. Are you saying victims of crimes shouldn't press charges or go through court cases in order to get justice or even possibly preventing that crime from happening to someone else?

[Kevin]

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.

[EE-BO]

Originally Posted by jessicaelaine

If she was having sex in a public area, yeah burn the whore on a stake and sell it to joe francis.

And for everyone who is thinking she shouldn't put herself through any more trauma by doing this, that is really backwards and messed up. Are you saying victims of crimes shouldn't press charges or go through court cases in order to get justice or even possibly preventing that crime from happening to someone else?

I like the Joe Francis line.

As for the second part of your post I have quoted, I very much agree victims should try to exact justice when they are wronged. Too many victims of sexually invasive/violent crimes never report them, and it just lets the perps do it again.

But in this case we have a situation where the young lady caught the filming in the act and got the tape away from the guys before they could do anything with it. She was engaging in consensual sexual activity, and so the only real crime I see here is that the other guy got a free peek at this young woman without her permission- and that her paramour was complicit in making the other guy's crime possible.

On that grounds the punishment seems to fit the crime here- but with a full appreciation of the fact if she had not caught the videotaping when she did, it very likely would have been shown to a lot of other people.

But it was not. And so by filing the civil suit she is clearly just out for some money- and that does say something negative about her character in my view. It is one thing to seek justice, but quite another to turn the thwarted attempts at lameness by 2 kids into a big payday.

Originally Posted by EE-BO

But it was not. And so by filing the civil suit she is clearly just out for some money- and that does say something negative about her character in my view. It is one thing to seek justice, but quite another to turn the thwarted attempts at lameness by 2 kids into a big payday.

Civil suits do not mean the person is just out for money all the time. Sometimes money is the only thing people understand and perhaps 10 days in jail and 50 hours community service did not communicate to these men that what they did was wrong. In order for our system to work criminals must have a fear of getting caught and the possible punishment that is greater than the possible rewards of that crime. And I said possible rewards, meaning that just because those rewards didn't happen because she caught them shouldn't mean they shouldn't be held responsible for what they did.

We don't know what they were planning on doing with the tape. We don't know if this women was the first or would have been the last. If it were me, I would sue to make sure I was the last and that other men would be deterred from doing it to anyone else.

And this is not the first time people found florida sex crime laws unjust. http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/myfox/p...Y&pageId=3.2.1
http://www.pnj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art...NION/807300333

[collegegirlnj]

I'm sorry if this is disrespectful, but I came across this thread in Google, and couldn't help but jump in....I think this girl has labeled herself a party girl on MySpace so, the guys acted reasonably..and I'm a girl!! I don't know about this guy though..

http://www.michaelcrook.org/blog/200...wanted-it-bad/

This blogger essentially calls her out as a slut, and I don't think that's right. But then, SHE was the one that took 20 mins to find the damn thing

[ZTAngel]

Originally Posted by EE-BO

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.

Hi, 1953 is calling and wants its morals and cultural views back. Think what you want about the girl for suing but to call her a whore for having intercourse....wow. The sex was consensual meaning the guy was quite all right with it as well. Does that make him a whore too?

I just can't believe it's 2008 and we're still calling women whores and labeling them as "improper" because they have sex out of the wedlock.

It's college. People hook up with each other. It happens. But nobody should have to worry that their sexual acts will be caught on camera without their permission.

[EE-BO]

I am not talking about sex out of wedlock. This was clearly a casual encounter at a frat house in the bedroom. It was not even a girlfriend/boyfriend thing.

And frankly she can do as she pleases- I am just pointing out how it looks. It has nothing to do with 1953 versus 2008- it has to do with the fact most ladies do not have one night stands in fraternity houses.

I do agree that her right to privacy is totally separate from the moral argument. It is just that from a public perception standpoint she is really screwing herself over. This is not a good way to be famous when you start looking for a husband (admittedly a double standard expectation of women which I think unfortunate- but there it is.)

Edit- I also apologize for being so coarse about this. I was working late last night and not in a good mood. Also, as I am now in my 30s I am seeing a lot of ladies I know who made bad calls early in life and how it is devastating them now. It is very frustrating to watch people do something we all do from time to time and just happen to be the one who gets caught up in a bad situation. I don't hate this young lady. I just think the lawsuit is bad decision #2 and makes the perfectly normal bad decision #1 into something that is even worse- i.e. suggesting she is a gold digger. Saying whore on an internet forum doesn't exactly help the situation, but it was my gut reaction at the time.

[ZTAngel]

Originally Posted by EE-BO

And frankly she can do as she pleases- I am just pointing out how it looks. It has nothing to do with 1953 versus 2008- it has to do with the fact most ladies do not have one night stands in fraternity houses.

That's my argument right there. I'm really not trying to pick on you...I promise...I'm just pointing out the differences in how we view men and women when it comes to sex. Ladies don't have one night stands in fraternity house but what about the fraternity guys that are engaged in that same act with the lady who had sex in the frat house? He ultimately is still considered a gentlemen.

I just kinda feel that a lot of the posts have in a way blamed her for getting filmed. I don't agree with the suing part but it's like she's being bashed for hooking up with the guy in the first place. Did she make a mistake by having sex with this douchebag? Yes. Did she deserve to be filmed? No. To take it a step further, this is exactly the reason why many women won't come forward when they're sexually assaulted. The public passes judgments on her such as: "Well, if she weren't a party girl, this wouldn't have happened to her" or "If she didn't go home with this guy, this wouldn't have happened." Nobody deserves for this type of stuff to happen. Obviously, this is something that hits close to home as one of my best friends was raped not too long ago after making a bad choice...she was drunk and went back to her friend's house to sleep it off and do a bit of kissing. He ended up raping her and she didn't report it because she didn't want the police, or the public, to dig through her personal life and pass judgments on her for her choices or past reputations as they tend to do with the female victim. I would hate for anyone to think of her as a whore just because she made a poor choice and she was a bit of a party girl....

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by ZTAngel

That's my argument right there. I'm really not trying to pick on you...I promise...I'm just pointing out the differences in how we view men and women when it comes to sex. Ladies don't have one night stands in fraternity house but what about the fraternity guys that are engaged in that same act with the lady who had sex in the frat house? He ultimately is still considered a gentlemen.

That's because people believe in the "boys will be boys" nonsense. And it is nonsense.