Last night I was flipping thru the channels looking for something to watch. I turned to NBC and caught the show "Spy Camera" or something like that. Anyway, they were showing this clip of a chick locking herself out of the car and she asks a some dude passing by if he could crawl thru the sunroof and open the door for her. So, he did.. once he got the door open the alarm went off and the chick went for the stereo, pulled it out, and darted off the parking lot. The dude who helped the chick open the car door was confused and a security guard immediately came to the dude who's all confused and scared. Basically, the security guard is accusing him of trying to break into a car, and so on. As I watch, I noticed the guy was damn near to breaking tears trying to explain what went on but the security guard basically "acted" as the dude was just BS'ing. Anyway, what right do these TV shows to inflict such emotional distress to people and think they can get away with it?
Is this a lawsuit waiting to happen?
- Thread starter kt
- Start date
That's not the point whether the footage made it to the TV show or not. THe point is they have already caused the emotional distress, whether the guy signed to have the footage be on the TV show is irrelevant. For the sake of the argument, the guy refused to sign.. then what? The emotional distress is already inflicted on the guy without his acknowledgement.
remember that girl in florida who sued for being placed in "girls gone wild" w/o her permission and won?
If you are over 18, and in a public place (AKA: Parking lot), they are allowed to film you and use that for their own game.
The girl?s gone wild case was more about an unenforceable contract. They needed a contract as it is technically regulated, because it is considered pornography. The females generally claimed that it was an invalid contract due to the fact that they had been drinking, or that they were pressured into it somehow. I believe the only successful argument was that the producers coerced her into drinking in order to get her signature.
As far as emotional harm, eh, stranger things have happened!
Armani
The girl?s gone wild case was more about an unenforceable contract. They needed a contract as it is technically regulated, because it is considered pornography. The females generally claimed that it was an invalid contract due to the fact that they had been drinking, or that they were pressured into it somehow. I believe the only successful argument was that the producers coerced her into drinking in order to get her signature.
As far as emotional harm, eh, stranger things have happened!
Armani
Originally posted by: AnthraX101
If you are over 18, and in a public place (AKA: Parking lot), they are allowed to film you and use that for their own game.
The girl?s gone wild case was more about an unenforceable contract. They needed a contract as it is technically regulated, because it is considered pornography. The females generally claimed that it was an invalid contract due to the fact that they had been drinking, or that they were pressured into it somehow. I believe the only successful argument was that the producers coerced her into drinking in order to get her signature.
As far as emotional harm, eh, stranger things have happened!
Armani
Sure they could film you in public places, but hiring actors to manipulate and inflict unwanted emotions is not right. By the same token, would you feel it's alright for me to hire a thug and beat the crap out of you in a public place while filiming that on tape? I think physical harm and emotional harm go under the same category in the court of law, no?
Originally posted by: kt
Originally posted by: AnthraX101
If you are over 18, and in a public place (AKA: Parking lot), they are allowed to film you and use that for their own game.
The girl?s gone wild case was more about an unenforceable contract. They needed a contract as it is technically regulated, because it is considered pornography. The females generally claimed that it was an invalid contract due to the fact that they had been drinking, or that they were pressured into it somehow. I believe the only successful argument was that the producers coerced her into drinking in order to get her signature.
As far as emotional harm, eh, stranger things have happened!
Armani
Sure they could film you in public places, but hiring actors to manipulate and inflict unwanted emotions is not right. By the same token, would you feel it's alright for me to hire a thug and beat the crap out of you in a public place while filiming that on tape? I think physical harm and emotional harm go under the same category in the court of law, no?
No they should not. No one has ever said that it's your right to not have your fealings hurt. However, being physicaly harmed is different.
Armani
Yeah, it would have been hilarious if he had dislocated her arm for her, before she could make off with the goods. Who would have the last laugh then?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter