A jury upheld the claim of the “girls gone wild” film company that a woman had given consent to appear topless on film simply by dancing in the bar where the videographers were shooting. You read the news articles covering this case along with some other philosophical sources on consent and ownership.

Do you think she gave consent, implicit or otherwise? Would Rawls think so? Why or why not?

If not, what sort of consent do you think might have been sufficient?

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

Consent Gone Wild Based on the gone wild verdict it is evident that the woman ... View the full answer