Mods, I apologize if this should be in Cafe Society…I opted to post in whatever forum (either IMHO or CS) would allow me in first. Ever since the change, my browser appears to want to break up my relationship with the Dope.
I’m not even going to try to link the story because that would result in certain booting. If someone else would be so kind, I’d appreciate it.
Anyway, my unemployed self was planted in front of Court TV today and they had a case on where a man was suing Candid Camera and Peter Funt (spawn of Allen Funt). Basically, Peter Funt played dress up as a security guard at an airport (pre-9/11) and “made” the man suing get on a conveyor belt to be X-rayed. The man got caught in the belt when he was de-mounting the conveyor and apparently suffered a leg bruise. He won a total of $390,000 ($150K each from Candid Camera and Allen Funt and settled w/the aiport for $90K).
There was a lot of side chatter on Court TV about the case being ridiculous, but I don’t see it that way. I’m glad he won. It doesn’t seem like a silly mailbox-talking prank, it seems like an abuse of power and another example of the entertainment industry thinking the general public will laugh anything off for the chance to be on TV. Interestingly, the award was not for the battery (bruise), IIRC, but for the “false imprisonment” and embarrassment.
I totally think he should of sued.
Candid Camera took advantage of people’s gullibility AND the fact that they could not say no to this ridiculous act because he could well of been arrested if this were actually neccessary. (being an airport, afterall)
I skimmed this article in “People” Magazine and I THINK it said something about him getting a nose injury, and there was lots of blood involved.
I don’t think his leg being bruised was the only injury.
There was definitely no nose injury and no blood involved. Again, he didn’t win because of the injury, but because of the other factors – Funt impersonating a security guard, being “forced” to go through the X-ray, etc.
I think he deserved every penny. Why should have have been embarrased, inconvenienced, and injured just so some fourth-rate TV show could get higher ratings? I would have sued too. The idea that it’s okay to trick people and force them into doing something ridiculous - particularly in this situation where people are very on-edge and afraid of being detained or arrested if they protest in the least - all in the name of ratings - is absurd. What if this guy were in a hurry for some reason? What if he had been desperate to go to the bathroom and was forced to participate in this stupid scenario? Why should he have been made to spend one second of his time being part of a brainless game in which he had no choice about whether he wanted to join in or not?
Maybe an award of that size will make them think twice next time. Although I doubt it.
Don’t even get me started on those asinine “Funniest Videos” shows where the majority of them are people getting hit in the face with golf clubs or little kids crashing to the floor crying and everyone just laughs and laughs. It’s completely repulsive.
Didn’t notice the pre-9/11 part. But it doesn’t matter. People (sensible people anyway) have always been careful to do what they’re told by airport security.
Missbunny, I totally, completely, agree with the funniest videos comment. HA HA, let me keep filing while Johnny Jr. gets hit in the face with a swing!
What blows my mind is the fact that MORE people don’t sue. I came across another show called “Boiling Point” which is along the same line as Candid Camera except the goal is to get the victim to reach his/her “boiling point” (from what I could gather, the criteria was that they had to swear). In the one and only scenario I saw, they took over a dog groomer and told people who had brought in very small dogs that their dog had attacked the groomer and that they were going to sue them. What a riot! One woman was in tears. Another managed to stay calm for 15 minutes so she won ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS! WTF?? The other people (crying woman) included just got to be on TV, I suppose.
Does anyone know if programs like Candid Camera are required to get permission before they can air a prank that they taped?
If they are, then anything you see was approved by the “victim” and if seems that the right to sue might be suspect. (I can imagine a case where someone gives approval thinking “Cool, I’ll be on TV” then after seeing themselves look stupid over the airwaves, deciding to sue).
If permission was not given (either not required or withheld), then it’s a different matter.
In the case I cited in the OP, the man who sued did not give permission and his segment was never aired by Candid Camera. It was aired by Dateline (IIRC) and a few other news shows who were reporting on the story.
Even with a signed release, it would seem that some argument could be made for the timing – I assume they shove a document in front of them while they are still shell-shocked – Would there be any grounds to argue that you hadn’t really thought it all out?
I think a lawsuit is in order. Personally, I don’t like practical jokes even from people I know and like, let alone from complete strangers, who then expect you to laugh along and allow them to air you being made a fool of. As has been mentioned - when you’re in an airport and believe (whether or not correctly) that you must follow rules made to protect the public good, you generally do as you’re told, in order to be allowed to board your flight. That the airport had the poor judgement to allow such a stunt makes them equally culpable.
Pulling pranks, even innocent pranks, on an unsuspecting public in order to profit off of the video evidence is sort of in the gray area between acceptable and unacceptable in the first place. When the pranks are obviously harmless and the victims agree to let the footage be used, then I feel it falls on the “acceptable” side. The old Candid Camera pranks just weren’t mean-spirited. It’s probably worth making a slight infringement on people’s implied right to be left alone in order to produce some highly entertaining television. A classic example from Candid Camera was when they took a seemingly ordinary mirror, replaced it with one-way glass, and filmed people as they comed their hair, blew their noses, put on lipstick, etc. It was hilarious. You never think about how totally weird you really look when you do that stuff alone in the mirror.
If the pranks start involving the risk of harm to a person’s body, possessions, pocketbook, relationships or state of mind, or even if they waste too much of a person’s time, then they start moving on to the unacceptable side. I see a lot of pranks that make me think “gosh, what if the person has a heart condition? They could have dropped dead!” Shortsheeting the bed is funny. Ex-Lax in the brownies is not. And pranks where the victim is forced to do something by someone impersonating a figure of significant authority are clearly unacceptable.
Even in the pre-9/11 world, airport personnel had, in many ways, more authority than even a police officer. A police officer has to have probable cause to detain you and search you, and I suppose airport security people also had to, but their standards of what constitutes probable cause were quite a bit lower than the cops, especially when it came to the possibility of taking prohibited items on the plane. When it came to security procedures, you played it straight, because the security folks were compelled to take even the most innocent joke as a red flag. If they asked me “Did you pack your own bag?” I sure wasn’t going to say “No, it was packed by my cousin Taliban Tillie.” And if they asked me to get on the belt, I might ask to see a supervisor or something, but if they told me that I had to do it in order to get on my plane, well, I’d probably do it. They’d find me innocent in the end, but who wants to deal with a big search and investigation? I’d miss my plane!
I hope this makes some of the other shows out there heed this warning.
I wish someone would just go off on Ashton Kutcher of Punk’d infamy. The pranks this talentless oof plays should have him and his production company jailed. Telling people their loved one has been arrested (as was done to Pink) and some of the inane hurtful pranks pulled on people like Amber Tymbln. Making this young woman think she was responsible for a person loosing their cherished pet.
This whole concept, along with Shannon Doherty’s show on SciFi, has taken the Candid Camera idea way too far. If Kutcher wasn’t playing pranks on his friends I’m sure someone would have literally blown him away, by now. And Doherty was sued before the show even aired. She took some girl out into the desert, purportedly to a “rave” and convinced her they were being attacked by a flying saucer.
Yeah. You say dumb girl. But you’re in a limo, and you’ve been given some drinks, and now a chopper or something shines weird lights on your car. . .
Well, the jury’s finding seems perfectly reasonable to me. “Negligence, false imprisonment and intentional misrepresentation” seems to describe perfctly what the morons at Candid Camera did.
I hope the award isn’t reduced, not necessarily because i think that Zelnick really deserves $390,000 (i don’t care much about this either way), but because punitive damages like this can teach idiots like Funt to be a little more circumspect about how they treat people.
I saw the footage on an exposé show (“Has reality TV gone too far?”), and the guy clearly called Funt on the gag. He actually said something very much like “What, am I on Candid Camera? Where’s the camera?”
The facty that Funt refused to give up the gag is probably what sunk him on the ‘forceable confinement’ charge.
Thanks, Mhendo. (I have always loved your sig, btw).
Hroeder, Ashton Kutcher was on “Today” today and “punk’d” Katie in the sense that she asked a question about Demi Moore and he told her that “this is why I wanted to do the interview with Matt; I TOLD you guys I didn’t want to talk about that stuff” and then got up to leave while struggling to de-mic himself. Then he let her in on the gag.
What a laugh, I tell you. I guess it just comes down to what people find funny. Personally, I don’t think seeing people squirm in embarrassment or cry is funny. I think putting out a sign on a checkered walkway that says “walk ONLY on the black squares” and filming the people who see the sign and carefully try to manuever their way forward only on the black squares is funny (that was an actual Candid Camera skit). The difference is that today’s skits would say that if you walked on the white squares you’d be blown up.
A totally valid lawsuit and verdict and if Funt appeals then I hope the next one is for $1 million. (He’s lucky the suit wasn’t filed in Alabama or one of the other jackpot justice states where the jury could easily return an eight figure verdict.)
Remember when MTV got sued for throwing crap on people? I would have been so mad, I might have actually gotten violent with them. If I’d been carrying my pepper spray, I think they would have gotten some. That’s just ridiculous.
What’s really frightening to think about is that in order to push the envelope, they’re going to have to get more and more outrageous-and one day, someone’s gonna get seriously injured or killed.
I’ve seen Scare Tactics (the Doherty show) once. In the three segments the marks were tricked into thinking:
a) He was on a rip-off of ST and the mark shot one of the other actors because she thought he was a werewolf.
b) He was working for Doherty and was expected to protect her from a stalker - who went on to murder her.
c) He was pranking a friend who freaked out and killed one of the actors by accident.
Is making the mark think they’re responsible for someone’s death the standard prank on that show? That’s…really fracking tacky. (Although the third one was kind of clever.)