Stripper sues Naked Dating Show for failing to satisfy oral agreement. Judge tosses case.
(Jessie) Nizewitz, 28, filed the complaint in New York Supreme Court last August, alleging she “suffered and continues to suffer severe extreme emotional distress, mental anguish, humiliation and embarrassment” from having her private parts broadcast to a national audience.
Because everyone knows that strippers oppose broadcasting their private parts for money.
In reaction to the lawsuit, the defendants including Lighthearted Entertainment and Firelight Entertainment said that the former stripper was once comfortable with the show’s premise. Before casting her, producers made her consent to being filmed in the nude and allow the footage to be telecast without restriction. “Unfettered nudity,” said the producers, “was a crucial aspect of the program.”
I’ve never liked “reality television” and not just because it is voyeurism–which Naked Dating takes to the highest (or is it lowest) level yet. Reality TV is a lot like modern news, the Weather and History Channel, and so on. They exist to make money so producers and directors must encourage (see also script) and edit “reality” in to a marketable product that will keep their masters happy.
The plaintiff argued in turn that while she may have signed away consent, she also had an oral agreement with producers promising a blurring. She also contended that gross negligence couldn’t prospectively be waived.
According to the Hollywood Reporter the judge did not believe that oral agreements should be ignored but given the premise of the show…
At a hearing last week, New York Supreme Court justice Anil Singh agreed with the defendants that Nizewitz had consented to be on Dating Naked with knowledge of what it would entail.
If you agree to frolic about naked on television in exchange for money, as the old proverb goes….
