Baring it all

Breasts, fame and money. There's an attention-getter.\nAll three of these have often caused people to wind up in lawsuits, and what better example to give than Girls Gone Wild, the world famous company specializing in videotaping women "baring it all."\nIn a recent case set for jury selection Oct. 7, Becky Lynn Gritzke, a 25-year-old Florida State University business major, admitted she exposed her breasts at the 2000 Mardi Gras celebration in exchange for beads. Present was a cameraman from GGW, who Gritzke claims, she was unaware of. \n Now, the one-time Miss September campus calendar model is suing because a month after her fleshy display, she was stunned to find herself starring in a GGW television promotion, on the company's Web site and was even on the cover of the video, according to www.nineronline.com.\nSaying her likeness was used for profit without her consent and subjected her to "ridicule and embarrassment," she's suing for more than $75,000 in damages and seeking an unspecified amount of the profit made from the video's sales. In its defense, GGW was quoted by The Niner saying Gritzke's "removing her shirt in public at the world famous Mardi Gras celebration…is certainly a matter of public interest (and) publications of public nudity generally are considered newsworthy."\nWe're not so sure about that. People generally don't buy the videos to find out "what's new in the world of flashing."\nTonight on GGW: Voluptuous Vanessa outflashes Busty Betsy. \nUnlikely. \nBut how newsworthy is the content? That's up to the courts to decide, and as IU journalism professor Jon-Paul Dilts' and professor emeritus in journalism Ralph Holsinger's book Media Law states, "although editors choose news, feature, photo and other content with the expectation that it will help the publication prosper, the courts (maintain) that it does not follow that persons who are featured have been victims of appropriation."\nWe're almost positive that even as a private citizen, Gritzke wasn't portraying a sense of a need for privacy that she claims was invaded. What sense does it make to stand on the grounds of being subjected to "ridicule and embarrassment," when while at Mardi Gras, cameras are everywhere? Flashing what most deem as "private" body parts in public is a desperate call for attention, especially when done in a public place, and particularly during Mardi Gras!\nAs a calendar model, Gritzke is in the business of selling her image. Is she really seeking damages for having been embarrassed or because she's missing out on what could be her ticket to fame?\nWe're not here to tell people what's moral in the realm of public acts. But we are here to say one shouldn't expect privacy if carrying out mindless actions in public and having no consideration for the repercussions.