Fashion Board 2-3-04 to 3-5-04

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by paigowprincess
[survivor] spoiler





















dissent.

1) I doubt a litigation waiver would include thbings like men rubbing their naked penii agsainst you. Can you even contract against this kinda thing? It seems beyond the scope of what such a reality tv K could include, but I am not a reality tv lawyer. Str8?

2) Even if the K would ban such a suit, do you think Sue Hawk would know this? If I am unsure, I cant imagine she could be certain? Hell, maybe her and Hatch were in cahoots and are planning to split the money?

3) THe other reason I think its bullshit is bc if Hatch did do such a thing, it would be the equivalent of a dog humping another dog to establish domincance and wouldnt be sexual (he is gay). ANd Sue Hawk seems a little tough to let him haev his dominance so easily.

Oddly realityblurred is reporting (I didn't see it myself) that she and Hatch did CBS Early Show together today and they said they have patched up their differences. Seems to me that it would be hard to file suit against the show/network et al if you've already forgiven the bad actor. It doesn't seem like much of a suit if she doesn't sue him too.

[bold_n_brazen]

Originally posted by paigowprincess
spoiler





















dissent.

1) I doubt a litigation waiver would include thbings like men rubbing their naked penii agsainst you. Can you even contract against this kinda thing? It seems beyond the scope of what such a reality tv K could include, but I am not a reality tv lawyer. Str8?

2) Even if the K would ban such a suit, do you think Sue Hawk would know this? If I am unsure, I cant imagine she could be certain? Hell, maybe her and Hatch were in cahoots and are planning to split the money?

3) THe other reason I think its bullshit is bc if Hatch did do such a thing, it would be the equivalent of a dog humping another dog to establish domincance and wouldnt be sexual (he is gay). ANd Sue Hawk seems a little tough to let him haev his dominance so easily.

1) Hell, I'm not a litigator. I'm not even a lawyer anymore. But if I were to draft that waiver it would say something like "Contestant understands that Survivor LLC, CBS, and the producer in no way contgrol the outcome or the process of the game. Contestant assumes all risks, inherent or otherwise, whether caused by Survivor LLC, CBS, the producers, other Contestants, Acts of God, weather, animals, and any other cause. Contestant agrees as a condition to playing the game, to waive all rights to sue Survivor LLC, CBS, or the Producers for any harm caused while a Contestatn."

I don't think she'd get past summary judgement.

2. No. I agree. Sue never read a thing they sent her.

3. Agree again. I was surprised she took it so hard. WTF?

Originally posted by barely_legal
I got the impression from what Rupert said that Sue was talking about suing Richard Hatch, not Mark Burnett or CBS. She was on the same tribe as Stacey so she has to have seen how a lawsuit against CBS could drag on forever and make her look bad. She would have a better chance of winning a lawsuit against Richard and it would cost her less than suing CBS and/or Mark Burnett.

OK but I feel like this overestimates her legal sophisitication and overlooks the fact taht a sexual charge is probably not something that was included in the K. Stacey sued about producers conspiring against her or some shit which is probalbyh the sort of thing that a K would be designed to cover among other things like "shut the fuck up " (hi sandra!). Also, no way Hatch is worth ten mill. Probalby several mill (how much plastic surger did he have anyway?) with his survivor check, his book and other miscellaneous bullshit. Also, I was thinkking if she was really so psychologically damaged taht she just couldnt go on, would she really be planning lawsuits, and blabbing about them, so soon? But she is Sue Hawlk, so that could go either way.

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
Oddly realityblurred is reporting (I didn't see it myself) that she and Hatch did CBS Early Show together today and they said they have patched up their differences. Seems to me that it would be hard to file suit against the show/network et al if you've already forgiven the bad actor. It doesn't seem like much of a suit if she doesn't sue him too.

Assuming tha patching things up means she has taken care of her psychological damage and there are no other damages, then she has no suit. And maybe she was being legit. Oh, how cynical I have become.

[robustpuppy]

Originally posted by Pretty Little Flower
RP's snippy little posts are my viagra.

Originally posted by Not Me
I have a few friends who swear by it. They say it makes them polyorgasmic.

Yeah, well, I don't like to brag, but we all have our own special talents.

Originally posted by bold_n_brazen
1) Hell, I'm not a litigator. I'm not even a lawyer anymore. But if I were to draft that waiver it would say something like "Contestant understands that Survivor LLC, CBS, and the producer in no way contgrol the outcome or the process of the game. Contestant assumes all risks, inherent or otherwise, whether caused by Survivor LLC, CBS, the producers, other Contestants, Acts of God, weather, animals, and any other cause. Contestant agrees as a condition to playing the game, to waive all rights to sue Survivor LLC, CBS, or the Producers for any harm caused while a Contestatn."

I don't think she'd get past summary judgement.

2. No. I agree. Sue never read a thing they sent her.

3. Agree again. I was surprised she took it so hard. WTF?

Not to get all Atticus on you, but do you really think a court would enforce such a contract against naked penis rubbing and humping? Its tantamount to rape without penetration and isnt the kind of thing was is foreseeable by anyone. I think when sexual violation happens, a contract isnt gonna be greart protection.

I had a dream that Joan Rivers has incurable cancer. Can I change my death pool list to include her?

[bold_n_brazen]

Originally posted by paigowprincess
Not to get all Atticus on you, but do you really think a court would enforce such a contract against naked penis rubbing and humping? Its tantamount to rape without penetration and isnt the kind of thing was is foreseeable by anyone. I think when sexual violation happens, a contract isnt gonna be greart protection.

Actually, yes. I do think a court would enforce such a contract.

There's an intent to be bound.
There's consideration.
There's an offer and acceptance.

Isn't that all it takes to make a contract?

Adn I can't see why this one would be voidable or void.

It seems that seeing a naked man would be foreseeable. And coming into contact with other players would be foreseeable. And it seems to me that a certain level of power gaming would be foreseeable.

Why does this feel like a law school hypo? Fuck, I hated contracts.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by bold_n_brazen
There's an intent to be bound.
There's consideration.
There's an offer and acceptance.

Isn't that all it takes to make a contract?

Yeah, but public policy can break it.

Consider this one broken.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Googling

I think I've probably been googled and contacted, but I'm not sure. My name isn't unusual, but I'm still pretty easy to find. Nothing has been nearly as creepy, though, as when an ex found me (pre-Google) when I was living in another country. I have no clue how he found me, since everyone I know vehemently denied telling him and I had basically no paper trail, but I got that drunken 3 am "it was all my fault I still think about you" letter. Creeped me right out.

I google people all the time for kicks, but I don't think I've ever contacted someone. I probably should - a guy I had a mild flirtation with in HS is now inhouse with a client.

The Mr. has googled and e-mailed some old HS friends. Some respond, some don't. He said he thinks some of them definitely got a "stalker" vibe off of it, though. He's said (and he does it more than I do) that where people live and what they are doing can make them harder to find than having a dead-common name. People who became housewives in his small hometown seem virtually not to exist.

He also discovered from google that his most psychotic ex girlfriend now writes a romance advice column for some romance novel fanzine. He was deeply disturbed to find that she takes stories he told her about the romantic foiables of various friends of his, casts him as the malfeasor and tells them as if they happened to her. He did not write to complain (she was really psychotic, I think he's afraid she'll come looking for him).

edited to addI've also lexis/nexised an ex - his family was involved in a rather prominent criminal court case, and I wanted to keep tabs on what was going on but not, you know, ask.

Originally posted by bilmore
Yeah, but public policy can break it.

Consider this one broken.

Exactly. Just like courts were loathe to enforece prenups for so long. and rape and its cousin, inappropriate sexual touching are big issues right now and rape gets special treatment in evidence and I amjured contracts. ANd was on YLJ

[bold_n_brazen]

Originally posted by bilmore
Yeah, but public policy can break it.

Consider this one broken.

For what public policy? The one that says that its against public policy for Survivor contestants to act like assholes?

He humped her. He didn't rape her, for God's sake.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by bold_n_brazen
For what public policy? The one that says that its against public policy for Survivor contestants to act like assholes?

He humped her. He didn't rape her, for God's sake.

Think beyond survivor.
the argument one might file would go like this:

One cannot be allowed to waive the right to object to inappropriate sexual contact. Certainly, it is against public policy to allow a waiver to stand, where the waiver is to be used to forgive a naked guy rubbing penis on the signer.

If this waiver is allowed to stand, how can one distinguish between a waiver in a standard employment contract, waiving any claim against sexual harassment from a supervisor. Forms will be rewritten the day after the court enforces this objectionable clause. Surely, this is a slippery slope, BLah lblah blah....

[bilmore]

Originally posted by bold_n_brazen
For what public policy? The one that says that its against public policy for Survivor contestants to act like assholes?

That can't be it. From what I've read here, that assholity IS public policy.

(But, See Hank.)

[barely_legal]

Originally posted by bold_n_brazen
For what public policy? The one that says that its against public policy for Survivor contestants to act like assholes?

He humped her. He didn't rape her, for God's sake.

You've got to be kidding me.

No, you're right. A woman should be able to laugh off a guy rubbing his naked penis against her, as long as he doesn't progress all the way to rape.

Next you'll say that it doesn't count b/c he wasn't a stranger.

Seriously, have you ever had a naked guy who disgusted you rub his genitals on your bare skin? Did you laugh it off?

I'm glad they made amends b/c I really think that Hatch is just so clueless that he really thought what he was doing was funny and I doubt he meant to traumatize her. But still. Unacceptable. And more unacceptable to say that it should have been laughed off.