Free Speech vs. Anonymity Gone Wild: Women Suing Joe Francis Fight To Remain Anonymous
from the anonymously-flashing dept
A lawsuit over the legality of a "Girls Gone Wild" video has turned into something of a free speech battle. Apparently four women who appeared in one of the famous videos as teenagers, are suing Joe Francis, the guy behind the whole GGW franchise. The women (all in their 20s now) want to remain anonymous in their lawsuit, saying that they were humiliated enough when the footage was released. The judge rejected the request to remain anonymous, and the women are now appealing. Various news organizations are taking the other side of the case, arguing that journalists should be allowed to report on names of plaintiffs for newsworthy stories. While I'm definitely a big supporter in protecting anonymous speech, I'm not sure that it makes sense here. The women were not anonymous. They appeared in public and did what the videos show them doing, whether or not they're happy about it now. On top of that, while protecting anonymous speech is a valid First Amendment issue, so is the right of journalists to publish relevant factual information on a news story. I'd be surprised if the appeals court rejects the district court's decision denying them the ability to file this case anonymously.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: anonymity, free speech, girls gone wild, joe francis
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
age
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: age
Really, I don't care here. I think that 'of age' bullshit is a remnant of religious morality, and needs to disappear.
Now, if these girls were FORCED into this, then they would get more of my sympathy, rather than the none they are getting right now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: age
I think it's better than 12 year olds aren't allowed to sign legally binding contracts. Just for example.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: age
If your morality doesn't have some sort of authority behind it, why should anyone listen to it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: age
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: age
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Have you really thought this one through?
Assuming she did sign in fact sign the forms, the legal bar is set pretty high for showing that she could not have been reasonably assumed to understand what she was signing, so she may well have a tough time at trial. Let's assume though, for the same of argument, that there was no model release at all (or clearly forged or something).
Then the hypothetical video company has seriously broken the law and at trial would be found liable, but under the regime you and this court seem to want, the model has to choose between seeing justice done but making it a matter of public record (easily available on the internet, complete with the video no doubt) tied to her name that she appeared in the video (thus greatly increasing the harm done) or remaining anonymous (so that only those that happened to watch the video might be able to guess that she's the girl in it) but letting the video company get away with it. I see no reason that justice shouldn't be served without inflicting additional harm on the victim.
Of course, this must to some extent be balanced with the public's right to know about the case, and if she were otherwise a public figure, perhaps the public's right to know ought to win out. If not though, it seems that the benefit to the public of knowing her identity is negligible compared to the harm done by revealing it.
It seems to me from your "they appeared in public and did what the videos show them doing, whether or not they're happy about it now" comment that you are letting your skepticism about the merits of the case taint your judgment on the anonymity issue. As a matter of law, where would you draw the line between a case like this (again, at this point the court should be assuming that the woman's claims about the facts are true) and, say, "hidden camera" voyeurism victims (or would you deny them anonymity too)?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Have you really thought this one through?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Have you really thought this one through?
Before that is the part where the judge decides, assuming the plaintiff's claims are true, whether a law has actually been violated or whether the case should just be dismissed, along with other questions like this anonymity issue. (If the judge assumed everything every plaintiff was false, every lawsuit would be dismissed before it got to trial.)
The defendant has certainly been "presumed innocent" in the sense that he hasn't been forced to pay any damages or punished in any way, and won't be until a jury finds that he did something that a judge has said violates the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Have you really thought this one through?
I feel sorry for their embarrassment, but you can't say no AFTER the fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Naked is the best disguise.
A false dichotomy. From my reading of the article it looks as if they did not identify themselves at the time, but acquaintances later recognized them in the video and "outed" them at school. Decades ago a girl could flash a crowd at spring break (or whatever) and be reasonably confident that no one would ever know who she was, or at least that it wouldn't become common knowledge (or common viewing!) in her home town. Now she must be more circumspect, which is everyone's loss.
I have mixed feelings about whether people should be allowed to bring suit anonymously, but the very fact that it is possible in this case means that we have not entirely lost the anonymity we used to take for granted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, please
Anybody who acts out in public has no reasonable expectation of privacy under the law. If you don't like that, then don't get drunk and do stupid things in public.
Whether or not their identities should be made available to the media in the court case is entirely different matter which has little or nothing to bear on their public display of idiocy. "Modeling release forms" don't bear on this case as it was not apparently a formal video, but something done in a public arena.
The "hidden camera voyeurism" issue doesn't apply here, either - it applies to places where the victims have a reasonable right to privacy, as in restrooms and more private settings.
I haven't seen the video (nor do I have any intention of watching it, I grew up decades ago), nor am I associated with the porn industry in any way, but I do know that anything I do in a bar or other legally public setting is something I can claim a right to privacy for. That's just plain ridiculous.
GSVEMR
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh, please
WRONG!!!!! It's illegal to take photos of anyone or anything without a written consent form!!!!! When you're out in public, you're surround by your own personal privacy shield and nobody is ever allowed to violate that without your permission!!!!!
Oh, and Gargle is EVIL!!!!!
www.Pee2PeeNet.net
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oh, please
Otherwise, beach photographers would have to get every single person to sign a release before putting their pictures up in their photography shops.... that is not how it works.
If you are out in public, you have NO right to privacy, period and done with.
Now, if someone is violating your PROPERTY RIGHTS as the FBI wishes to by putting something on your car? That is another story and under another facet of law to be challenged.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Oh, please
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oh, please
So the next time I'm up at the Rushmore monument, I'll make sure to get consent forms from any of the dozens of random strangers who may be in the frame of my camera lens.
Are you an idiot, or a lawyer? (Not that the two are mutually incompatible)
GSVEMR
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Oh, please
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh, please
All of these issues should be basically relevant though: for the anonymity issue, the only balancing should be between the public's interest in knowing about the case and the plaintiff's privacy/emotional distress/etc., and the public interest in the plaintiff's name still seems pretty negligible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oh, please
She was a goddamned BODY DOUBLE for a female who was in Playboy.
It's time to realize that this whole 'minor' thing is meant to treat children as 'lesser' and 'less worthy' of rights than adults are. That is not the case in the slightest, children are absolutely EQUAL to adults except in terms of physical power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Oh, please
You don't have children, do you? I love kids, but they are absolutely not equal to adults in many ways other than physical power. Judgment, emotional maturity, ability to reason through consequences, etc. It is completely appropriate and necessary for the law to treat children differently from adults.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, please
That same argument has been made in the past to deny civil rights to other groups including women and minorities.
Now, I'm not saying that a 3-year old should be able to scribble their name on a document in crayon and be liable for it - but be aware that '18-years and you're an adult' is completely arbitrary. I've known 16-year olds more mature than college graduates - and I bet you could find others pretty easily if you looked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, please
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oh, please
It's called taking responsibility for one's own actions; which seems to be a dying "ideology" in this country.
Shit like this just makes more work for more of the children being programmed by lawyer degrees.
GSVEMR
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Correction
GSVEMR
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Parents granted them autonomy.
>>> 3rd attempt! I get a blank "done" page.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Parents granted them autonomy.
That means getting rid of 'statutory rape', 'child sexual abuse', etc. and putting VERY short SoL's on forcible rape.
Because basically, after as little as 1 month... it's a 'he said, she said' and MANY teenagers and children go whining to the cops about sexual relationships they were in, to penalize someone else for ending the relationship in question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Parents granted them autonomy.
But that's wishing for fishes.
GSVEMR
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's an entirely different issue here...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymity v. Anonymity
The best known categories of such cases are the abortion rights cases, where it could be publicly humiliating for the plaintiff to admit that she is seeking an abortion (for example, Roe v. Wade) and cases involving minors.
Earlier this year, the case Doe v. Reed was a constitutional challenge to the disclosure of the names of petition signers; the case involved the right to stay anonymous and hence it would have surrendered that right to require the signers to be identified by the very act of suing. Another recent example of such a case was when two students who had been abused on AutoAdmit sued to identify the anonymous speakers who had publicly humiliated them. The trial judge allowed the plaintiffs to remain anonymous but ordered the anonymous defendants identified. By contrast, in one of the earlier cases involving a subpoena to identify anonymous defendants, the Virginia Supreme Court held that an Indiana company could not pursue a defamation claim (and a subpoena to identify the anonymous defendant) against anonymous speakers without revealing its own name.
These cases all turn on how strong the interest in anonymity is given the nature of the litigation, considered against the general presumption that judicial records should be open to public inspection.
Here the plaintiffs are now adults but were minors at the time of the events alleged in the lawsuit. That they are now adults does not disqualify them -- the cases brought by persons who are now adults, alleging abuse by their priests when they were minors, have usually proceeded with the plaintiffs identified publicly only as Doe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How do I get to be a juror on a trial like this?
"Your honor, we the jury feel we must review the evidence again."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Coerced
FTFA... "Francis has pleaded guilty to criminal charges of not having kept proper records involving one of the plaintiffs, and he was convicted in state court in Florida of coercing another one of the plaintiffs into prostitution as a minor for paying her $50 to appear on camera"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They always were
I would have thought they were appealing at the time, otherwise they wouldn't be in the video.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh COME ON!
PLEASE GO AWAY!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stupid is...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
well in some country's they are of legal age and why discriminate due to age? don't old women already have to deal whit that? why should the young ones?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Since these women were minors those videos are and should be illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Basically, what's been said in these comments is reiterated in an even bitchier tone. "Well, if you weren't such a drunk slut then you wouldn't have this problem!" Debatable. That's not the point, though. The point is that the participants were under the legal age of consent for a pornographic product. Period. End of discussion.
The point is that they're suing Joe Francis because they feel they were taken advantage of when they were a) drunk and b) too young to understand the full weight of their actions. Given that Francis and his organization have a long history of falsifying release forms, badgering women into performing acts they're uncomfortable with, and targeting women too drunk to refuse, I'd say they have a solid case.
Now, whether they actually deserve damages or not is up to a jury to decide. However, it seems cruel to force these women to endure further humiliation. The plain publication of their full and legal names isn't humiliation in and of itself, though I'm sure that'd be a truly awesome thing to have to worry about an employer running across in the course of a routine Google query. However: once news organizations have access to their full names, it becomes quite simple to start investigating their respective histories. And then anyone paying attention to the case stops by at each report of an alleged sexual act in the plaintiffs' histories and the chorus of "slut slut slut slut slut!" begins anew. That is something they deserve to not have to deal with again.
Any case dealing with the difficult and complicated nature of consent eventually boils down to: Well, how slutty are you generally? If you are more than x degree of slut, then you deserve whatever happens to you. Please note that x is a shifting target.
The plaintiffs are suing for damages stemming from an incident that occurred when they were minors. Given this and that the nature of the damages has to do with the humiliation associated with the prudish American attitude to public acknowledgements of sexuality, it seems silly and pointless to publish their names.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]