Viewer sues NBC over a Fear Factor episode
Viewer sues over Fear Factor rat episode
Associated Press
Posted January 7 2005, 9:43 AM EST
CLEVELAND - A viewer is suing NBC for $2.5 million, contending that he threw up because of a "Fear Factor" episode in which contestants ate rats mixed in a blender.
Austin Aitken told The Associated Press he watches "Fear Factor" often and had no problem with past installments where the reality show's participants ate worms and insects in pursuit of a $50,000 prize - but eating rats went "too far."
"It's barbaric, some of the things they ask these individuals to do," Aitken said Thursday.
Aitken's handwritten lawsuit contends the rat-eating made his blood pressure rise, resulting in being dizzy and lightheaded - and vomiting. Because he was disoriented he ran into a doorway, "causing suffering, injury and great pain."
Asked why he didn't shut off his television before the rat-eating segment, Aitken said he couldn't do it quick enough.
NBC responded with a brief statement: "We believe that the claim is completely without merit."
Aitken, a 49-year-old part-time paralegal, said he wants to send a message to NBC and other networks with the lawsuit. He said he isn't concerned with winning a cash judgment in court.
"I just put any figure. You really think I expect to get $2.5 million?" he said.
______
Associated Press
Posted January 7 2005, 9:43 AM EST
CLEVELAND - A viewer is suing NBC for $2.5 million, contending that he threw up because of a "Fear Factor" episode in which contestants ate rats mixed in a blender.
Austin Aitken told The Associated Press he watches "Fear Factor" often and had no problem with past installments where the reality show's participants ate worms and insects in pursuit of a $50,000 prize - but eating rats went "too far."
"It's barbaric, some of the things they ask these individuals to do," Aitken said Thursday.
Aitken's handwritten lawsuit contends the rat-eating made his blood pressure rise, resulting in being dizzy and lightheaded - and vomiting. Because he was disoriented he ran into a doorway, "causing suffering, injury and great pain."
Asked why he didn't shut off his television before the rat-eating segment, Aitken said he couldn't do it quick enough.
NBC responded with a brief statement: "We believe that the claim is completely without merit."
Aitken, a 49-year-old part-time paralegal, said he wants to send a message to NBC and other networks with the lawsuit. He said he isn't concerned with winning a cash judgment in court.
"I just put any figure. You really think I expect to get $2.5 million?" he said.
______
I clearly remember that episode. ALL of the commercials clearly showed that the one stunt was going to involve blended rats. So either this guy saw the commercials, knew what was coming, and watched anyway or that he somehow missed all of the commercials?! I'm not buying it.
i sure hope that the rats were dead, cause I could easily see animal rights activists being all over this, I had a pet rat for a couple of years, I really don't like the idea of blending live rats or blending rats that have been killed for this reason, then again I didn't see the show so I don't know what exactly happened.
Trending Topics
Well, if I was the judge facing this suit, I'd certainly agree to hear it. What right does a network have to broadcast, over public airwaves, content that can be demonstrated to cause intestinal distress in viewers? Is it logical to suggest that sex and violence are the only objectionable things in society? Is there a greater good being served by televised humiliation and disgust? Shouldn't citizens be allowed recompense for unanticipated suffering? Sure, blended rats were mentioned in the lead-up to the segment, but how is one to accurately determine one's probable reaction to such a lurid spectacle? Personally, this case is probably more appropriate for the FCC, but hey, whatever works. I'm kind of sick of networks being allowed to use the public airwaves for making people sick to their stomachs. Cable, that's fine, since you have to pay to get it, but the public airwaves are a shared resource, and as such, ought not to be used in a fashion that is expressly intended to cause nausea, IMHO
Originally Posted by no_really,Jan 7 2005, 02:29 PM
Well, if I was the judge facing this suit, I'd certainly agree to hear it. What right does a network have to broadcast, over public airwaves, content that can be demonstrated to cause intestinal distress in viewers? Is it logical to suggest that sex and violence are the only objectionable things in society? Is there a greater good being served by televised humiliation and disgust? Shouldn't citizens be allowed recompense for unanticipated suffering? Sure, blended rats were mentioned in the lead-up to the segment, but how is one to accurately determine one's probable reaction to such a lurid spectacle? Personally, this case is probably more appropriate for the FCC, but hey, whatever works. I'm kind of sick of networks being allowed to use the public airwaves for making people sick to their stomachs. Cable, that's fine, since you have to pay to get it, but the public airwaves are a shared resource, and as such, ought not to be used in a fashion that is expressly intended to cause nausea, IMHO 

One person's viewpoint should not ruin it for the rest. That viewer has a choice. It's called the "off" button.
It's not as if he is clueless what the show is all about. Unlike the Janet Superbowl debacle, there is no surprise about the show's content.







