First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
Goprohugs scandal and the 1st amendment
17215 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
(´◔౪◔)✂❤
Offline
Posted 7/15/13

Rpgpunk wrote:
I like how you omitted part 4 to fit your own definition.

"(4) the term “female breast” means any portion of the female breast below the top of the areola"

By this law what he did was legal but against the rules of the convention.
The act of offensively touching someone without permission is, by it's legal definition, battery. If there was fear, it would count as an assault. Which means, even if the act was not at all sexual, or it didn't cause any physical injury (like a stranger simply hugging you) a person can sue you for it. As for whether the plaintiff will actually get compensation for being hugged is left largely up to the judge.to decide.
35140 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / F / Seireitei, Soul S...
Offline
Posted 7/15/13 , edited 7/15/13



I like how you omitted part 4 to fit your own definition.

"(4) the term “female breast” means any portion of the female breast below the top of the areola"

By this law what he did was legal but against the rules of the convention.


I didn't omit it, just didn't quote the whole entire law. And, I didn't create or make my own definition of the law in my post, just simply pointed out the parts that are relevant to what this guy did, and therefore makes it against the law. Law enforcement and lawyers do this all the time. The only thing that I assumed was what was in the video since I can't watch it since it's been taken down since the first forum post was posted. Also, a lot of law enforcement look at having half or more of the breast exposed and filmed without the female's knowledge, even if the areola isn't exposed, as illegal. What this guy did IS illegal, as he did it without their permission and broadcast it. Also, if you actually pay attention to the law, it covers both exposed and unexposed breasts: (3) the term “a private area of the individual” means the naked OR UNDERGARMENT CLAD genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast of that individual. From my understanding, that covers all of those areas of the body.
19298 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Los Angeles, CA
Offline
Posted 7/15/13 , edited 7/15/13

FlyinDumpling wrote:


Rpgpunk wrote:
I like how you omitted part 4 to fit your own definition.

"(4) the term “female breast” means any portion of the female breast below the top of the areola"

By this law what he did was legal but against the rules of the convention.
The act of offensively touching someone without permission is, by it's legal definition, battery. If there was fear, it would count as an assault. Which means, even if the act was not at all sexual, or it didn't cause any physical injury (like a stranger simply hugging you) a person can sue you for it. As for whether the plaintiff will actually get compensation for being hugged is left largely up to the judge.to decide.


this was niether battery or assault. he never EVER touched anyone without permission. he asked for hugs and recorded them. so every hug was consenting. and for every girl in the video, he did tell them there was a camera. but after. just like in prank shows.




BlackRose0607 wrote:




I like how you omitted part 4 to fit your own definition.

"(4) the term “female breast” means any portion of the female breast below the top of the areola"

By this law what he did was legal but against the rules of the convention.


I didn't omit it, just didn't quote the whole entire law. And, I didn't create or make my own definition of the law in my post, just simply pointed out the parts that are relevant to what this guy did, and therefore makes it against the law. Law enforcement and lawyers do this all the time. The only thing that I assumed was what was in the video since I can't watch it since it's been taken down since the first forum post was posted. Also, a lot of law enforcement look at having half or more of the breast exposed and filmed without the female's knowledge, even if the areola isn't exposed, as illegal. What this guy did IS illegal, as he did it without their permission and broadcast it. Also, if you actually pay attention to the law, it covers both exposed and unexposed breasts: (3) the term “a private area of the individual” means the naked OR UNDERGARMENT CLAD genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast of that individual. From my understanding, that covers all of those areas of the body.



and you left out the most important part that is important to this particualar case. the DEFINITION of female breast.
"(4) the term “female breast” means any portion of the female breast below the top of the areola"


and i understand why people are a tad bit upset. but these kneejerk reaction are what getting me. he was a guy recording hugs from girls. not even every girl was showing cleavage. that in itself shows that he wasnt trying to be some sexual creeper. a video made in bad taste is not the same as illegal.

the 1st video was taken down from youtube, but i am uploading to a mirror, and i will update the links
24708 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
38 / M / Oregon Coast
Offline
Posted 7/15/13 , edited 7/15/13

BlackRose0607 wrote:




I like how you omitted part 4 to fit your own definition.

"(4) the term “female breast” means any portion of the female breast below the top of the areola"

By this law what he did was legal but against the rules of the convention.


"I didn't omit it, just didn't quote the whole entire law. And, I didn't create or make my own definition of the law in my post, just simply pointed out the parts that are relevant to what this guy did, and therefore makes it against the law. Law enforcement and lawyers do this all the time. The only thing that I assumed was what was in the video since I can't watch it since it's been taken down since the first forum post was posted. Also, a lot of law enforcement look at having half or more of the breast exposed and filmed without the female's knowledge, even if the areola isn't exposed, as illegal. What this guy did IS illegal, as he did it without their permission and broadcast it. Also, if you actually pay attention to the law, it covers both exposed and unexposed breasts: (3) the term “a private area of the individual” means the naked OR UNDERGARMENT CLAD genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast of that individual. From my understanding, that covers all of those areas of the body."

I understand what you're saying and section 3 does mention breasts but section 4 defines what the breast means/is in this law being anything below the top of the areola. You've over looked this part again to claim what he did was illegal and the video never showed anything below the areola. He also asked permission for each hug and informed each girl after the fact of the camera placement while a lot of the girls in the video noticed the camera and would either not hug him or gave him a side style hug.

Now the real question is whether or not he can be brought up on sexual harassment charges and if they will stand up in court. I do expect a lot of new rules/policies to come because of this video.



Sorry, for some reason this didn't quote right.
29162 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / The Sarlacc Pit
Offline
Posted 7/15/13
Not illegal, just kind of rude. He has a right, like everyone else, to take people's pictures in a public space.

It may not have been okay for some people, morally speaking, but people are trying to crucify a guy for liking tits, and that is something I can NOT abide by.
19298 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Los Angeles, CA
Offline
Posted 7/15/13 , edited 7/15/13

M1keymike1 wrote:

Not illegal, just kind of rude. He has a right, like everyone else, to take people's pictures in a public space.

It may not have been okay for some people, morally speaking, but people are trying to crucify a guy for liking tits, and that is something I can NOT abide by.


I totally agree, thats why i made this.

and they have no case for harassment either. because harassment is repeated. sorry. and if you want the definition of that. here ya go


harassment is defined as:
Unlawful violence, such as:
assault (attempting to cause a violent injury to you)
battery (use of force against you) or
stalking (repeatedly following or harassing you with the intent to place you in reasonable fear for your safety or your immediate family's safety);*
A credible threat of violence (a statement or actions that reasonably place you in fear for your safety, or the safety of your immediate family); or
Repeated actions (such as following you, making harassing telephone calls, or sending harassing emails) that seriously alarm, annoy, or harass you, and that serve no legitimate purpose and causes you to be extremely emotionally upset (distressed).**
39825 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Urban South
Offline
Posted 7/28/13
That was AWESOME! It's not like the women were being attacked or anything - each one of them ran up to him to give him the hug he was asking for. Honestly, I find strangers asking for hugs pretty creepy. I don't usually let myself be touched by random people. But I might consider hugging someone if I knew that I would be filming my boobs squishing on a camera lens.
7040 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Texas
Offline
Posted 7/28/13
Eh, this seems a little shady to me. I can see both sides though. If you go to a convention and wear something a little skimpy, there will be people who will try to take your photograph and may just go too far. Still, I can't ever see myself filming women like this. It seems pretty creepy. If you get their permission beforehand, I think it would be alright. I know they may claim it's a prank so they can tell them afterward, but it's still a crappy thing to do to women.
14579 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Purgatory
Offline
Posted 7/28/13
MAN, I was at AX. I wish I hugged him.
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.