Other than (I would assume) paying for the cost of the investigation and any/everything else related to the case and its resolution (including the 2 years of monitoring), I do not know what else the fine from this specific case is going to be put toward.

Well I’m not claiming that all such contracts are ironclad - and gross negligence would obviously be a legitimately possible exception to coverage by such a release. It seemed that you were claiming (in your first comment) that all such contracts are unenforceable (especially given that you haven’t actually read the…

You claimed that people who don’t know you can’t identify you, even from a “full in picture of your face”. This is not true. You seem to have great difficulty with the meanings of some relatively simple words and concepts.

Seeing someone on TV does not mean that you “know” that person (especially not in the same way a family member would know them) - it means you’ve seen them.

Shows like Wipeout and all of the “Survivor”-type shows would not exist if such contract clauses (assumption of risk) were unenforceable. All of those shows involve contestants choosing to take risks that could adversely affect their health and/or safety, and productions do not assume responsibility for the decisions…

How would it be unenforceable?

Those kinds of contracts have those clauses because by engaging in such activities, you may be putting your life at risk (especially if you have an undiagnosed medical condition). The production needs to make sure that you understand this and consent to participating with full knowledge, and won’t sue them for what…

No, what you describe is not like your sex / killing (false) analogy. It’s more like consenting to the risks involved in having sex when you consent to having sex (although sex still doesn’t make for the greatest analogy here since consenting to the risks involved is inherent in consenting to the act, so a contract /…

OK, well, you asked what the hospital is paying to the families - that will be decided as a result of the lawsuit. Government fines go to the government.

“A lawsuit the Chankos filed in 2015 was revived by a state appellate court this year”

“Of course people that don’t know you can’t identify you!”

You are making no sense.

You don’t understand how it is legal to consent to assuming the risk involved in a specific activity before engaging in that activity?

“Who gives a fuck who I posted my comment in response to?”

Yes, it’s pretty clear that you are criticizing comments for blaming her in response to someone making note of the media’s coverage mentioning her name, when you agree it’s par for the course on a celebrity gossip blog.

Once again: it is the media that is bringing up her name in regards to this case, which is what the OP was responding to.

You were replying to the OP, who was commenting on the fact that Jezebel (et al.) is bringing up Nicki Minaj in stories about this case, no? Again - it’s notable for a famous person who is so outspoken on certain issues to remain silent when someone close to them (of whom they appear to be supportive) acts in ways…

Yes, let’s just sweep child rape under the rug and let those involved deal with it privately. What a great idea.

Or, perhaps it’s that it’s notable for a famous person who is so outspoken on certain issues to remain silent when someone close to them (of whom they appear to be supportive) acts in ways that directly contradict that famous person’s public positions. Additionally, this is a celebrity gossip site - covering this type…

Yes - if he added her stage surname to his while keeping his last name as a middle name, that’s what he would get.