Hi
Months ago there was a televised bust. When the women were arrested, the police asked if any would do an interview for tv. They were told the camera would film from their backs. Two of the women decided to give interviews thinking they would only be filmed from the back.
Well it turns out that the ones who did the interviews were fully seen on the video. There were some shots of their backs but lots with their faces. I feel for them because they genuinely were unaware being filmed from front.
Now the women who did not grant interviews, were digitized so you cannot see their faces.
Can a lawyer please tell me, if the interviewed women where duped unwittingly allowing themselves to be seen on local tv? Is granting an interview giving up your facial "image"
Were the women who didn't give interviews just lucky or is it not permitted to show someone's facial image without their permission?
Sounds like a blessing in disguise to me. Imagine what that kind of free publicity could be worth, if it were even available! Think of it as an opportunity, rather than a problem.
Steveo,
If being a provider is one's career and she is proud of it, of course the free publicity is great. But let's face reality, there is still a social stigma associated with adult entertainment or even personal kinkiness that leeks out.
Thpse women did not want to be on tv. One had a boring but "real job" corporate career. Providing can be fun but can also be risky, not only with LE but psychopaths. Many providers have other interests and goals in life. These interests could be compromised, even shattered by television humiliation and/or a criminal record.
Imagine the corporate woman going back to work and everyone thinking she a whore or even worse, a possible drug user. Let's face it, there are stereotypes for providers such as tardiness, drug use, wasting money, supporting shiftless boyfriends, for example. If I were a mainstream person and saw those women on TV, I, like most of society would think they were sad and losers but that is not necessarily true but the media has the power to influence viewers minds. The media has the power to distort the truth. The media has a lot of power. They can be your best friend or worst enemy.
Anyway would a lawyer or at least someone from the media or even LE please answer my inquiry above?
I am NOT a legal expert (Is that what LE stands for?), but I can tell you THIS much: To move forward with any legal action you will need "credible witnesses", at least one, and more is better, to document the agreement--unless those women have something in writing. If they have a signed document from the TV station stipulating that faces will not be shown then that document finesses the matter right there.
Of course, it doesn't really sound like that at all, which brings us back to the matter of "credible witnesses." Those women need SOMEONE to substantiate their allegation. Actually they have each other, and to the extent that their stories are consistent with one another's that is a big plus.
But WHOEVER steps forward to vouch for these women stands to be cross examined on pretty serious terms by the opposing council. The opposing council will try to demonstrate that any concurrence to be seen has been contrived after the fact, but that there is enough inconsistency between seemingly irrelevant details that both or all would be expected to know to discredit them altogether.
This is much more an art than a science. No one really know what two people should be expected to remember. Nevertheless, the sheer impossibility of it all does not stop people from weighing in. And in a certain sense, it all boils down to the judge's prerogative, which can be good, or it can be bad.
That's what a trial would be like. And of course the threat of a trial is the leverage you have to get the TV station to settle out of court. Unfortunately though, it would seem in this case that the threat of a trial works much more decisively against your friends than against the TV station.
Forgive my cynicism, but if I am not mistaken, it really does boil down to a matter of brinkmanship.
There IS one other gambit that occurs to MY mind. And I honestly do not understand why no one has thought of it before me, but ALL of these prohibitions against trafficking in affections are basically unsupported apart from religious strictures and similar attitudes that boil down to nothing more than sheer opinion; and that represents a violation of the separation of church and state.
Seeing other people partake in activities that you may have ruled out for yourself simply is not a cause of action in any sense. It makes no sense to anyone except for those who are religious or those who are otherwise disposed to meddle in the affairs of others.
More than that, there is a basic hypocrisy in ruling out negotiation for sexual favors inasmuch as negotiation comes into play anytime two are more people are together, period. Our whole lives are made up of one continuous stream of negotiation. Singling out instances of negotiation for sex is a bit like shooting fish in a barrel.
Sex never really takes place apart from SOME form of agreement--or if it does, that implies rape, and that would be illegal too. And every agreement is the product of SOME sort of negotiation. So one way or another, virtually all sex is illegal.
Of course, as any religious person will tell you, there is an exception to be made for sex that takes place within the context of legal marriage. Again, this begins to look like a violation of the separation of church and state. MY argument against sexual activity being reserved only for those who are married is THAT is not the way God MADE us. And since the marital vows can never be honored perfectly, whosoever takes them is ipso facto engaging in an act of fraud.
What I am getting at is that all our laws in this area are entirely arbitrary. That is perfectly fine for a set of guidelines that each of us is free to follow or ignore as our insight and inspiration guide us, but it is wholly inappropriate for as a set of iron-clad rules.
Someone ought to take on the bull by the horns and clear all of this stuff out of the books. Alas, until that happens, the meddlers in our culture will always be in charge.
I'm sorry I cannot solve this one. If there IS a solution, hopefully my subject heading will draw the right person back to the problem (There WAS method in my madness). The only other thing I can say is, good luck.
Unfortunately it looks like your attempt to purchase VIP membership has failed due to your card being declined. Good news is that we have several other payment options that you could try.
We thank you for your purchase!
Membership should be activated shortly. You'll receive notification!
