Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As I watched a group of females debate the possibility of Michael Barrett (the creep who recorded a nude Erin Andrews through a hotel peep hole) getting off with probation and a fine, I realized that American feminists may very well be incapable of grasping the concept of equal rights. Yes, her privacy rights were violated, but do they not know what Ms. Andrews does for a living? While I condemn the vile acts of Michael Barrett for permanently robbing Ms. Andrews of her privacy, when has Ms. Andrews or her supporters cared about the privacy of male athletes? When did female sports reporter Erin Andrews ask male athletes permission to conduct interviews in male locker rooms? When did Erin Andrews and her ilk ask the wives of these athletes if it would be OK to interview their husbands before they had a chance to dress themselves? When have feminists addressed the double standard of male sports reporters still being denied access to female locker rooms?
What has happened to Erin Andrews is a small down payment on what she and other feminists deserve for robbing male athletes of their privacy. When female sports reporters respect the dignity of male athletes or male sports reporters are permitted to barge into female locker rooms to conduct interviews, I'll care about Ms. Andrews' privacy. Until then, cry me a river Ms. Andrews.
How do you know for a fact that Erin Andrews walks in on athletes while they are naked? This used to be a much bigger problem 20 years ago when athletes complained about Hannah Storm forcing her way into the mens locker room. Since then, teams have taken measures to better divide the locker room to ensure privacy in a bathing area and the locker room. If a player chooses to disrobe in areas in front of female reporters, that is up their discretion but there are areas that are private that reporters don't enter. Even if this was the case, don't you think there is a difference in the intent? The reporter is trying to interview the person. The peeping tom is trying to videotape her for the sake of selling the tape to various pornographic sources. You can't distinguish between these two situations? This perpetrator got incredibly lucky he didn't serve any jail time. He stalked Andrews with the intent of recording her and selling the tape on-line. This judge was completely wrong. I am a male and one doesn't need to be a female to understand and respect women's rights. I'm not a feminist, just a decent human being who can recognize right from wrong.
How do you know for a fact that Erin Andrews walks in on athletes while they are naked? This used to be a much bigger problem 20 years ago when athletes complained about Hannah Storm forcing her way into the mens locker room. Since then, teams have taken measures to better divide the locker room to ensure privacy in a bathing area and the locker room. If a player chooses to disrobe in areas in front of female reporters, that is up their discretion but there are areas that are private that reporters don't enter. Even if this was the case, don't you think there is a difference in the intent? The reporter is trying to interview the person. The peeping tom is trying to videotape her for the sake of selling the tape to various pornographic sources. You can't distinguish between these two situations? This perpetrator got incredibly lucky he didn't serve any jail time. He stalked Andrews with the intent of recording her and selling the tape on-line. This judge was completely wrong. I am a male and one doesn't need to be a female to understand and respect women's rights. I'm not a feminist, just a decent human being who can recognize right from wrong.
The only difference in intent is that Michael Barrett deliberately disregarded Ms. Andrews' legal right to privacy while Andrews deliberately disregarded the male athlete's legal right to privacy that was taken away by sexist Judge Constance Baker Motley in the 1970s. Yes, they are both wrong. Yes, he deserves prison time. Yes, she is getting a taste of her own medicine.
This is a journalism-rights question that's long been decided by both legal scholars and several Supreme Court decisions (when the court leaned both Left and Right, similar decisions were handed down). These decisions claim that because athletes are public figures, then the media has access to them. Further, professional sports organizations work out the rules with the media on who they can interview and when they can do this. Journalists are much more at the mercy of the sports organization (in college these rules are much more stringent). Think about it, journalists have to do what the management tells them to do, for the most part, or the journalist risks losing access. If a journalist loses access to the teams' player that s/he covers, then that journalist's media organization loses a competitive advantage.
To make your argument a little more persuasive, it'd be helpful if you could show instances in which male athletes opposed locker room interviews because of decency issues and personal privacy. As a blanket rule, most public figures probably oppose interviews by the media, but it's part and parcel of their status as public figures. They don't have to be interviewed, and many have been evasive when the journalists track them down (i.e. Ricky Williams, among others, his former coach Jim Haslett basically insulted journalists routinely in his press conferences). The relationship between athletes (and most public figures in general) is an adversarial one. Both parties lie and both exploit. In the case of the athletes here, they have power as well. They can use their intelligence to thwart journalists' desire to interview them. Reporters seek comments from the figure(s) who will give them the best sound-bytes and quotes. When players answer in "yes" or "no" questions, the reporter then becomes bored and looks for their next victim. In terms of locker-room interviews, perhaps they should use this tactic to diffuse the invasion by the reporters.
(on a side not here and something that is very relevant, the rock star Jim Morrison of the Doors fame was routinely hounded by the media. He was very adept at being such a jerk in the interviews, that demand for these went down as his career progressed. In short, journalists couldn't deal with his intelligence and never figured out a way to combat his implied evasiveness. See youtube interviews with I think a Rolling Stone reporter and you can see how Morrison took control of the interview and the journalist was stymied by Morrison's intelligence.)
I once worked as a sports reporter when I was right out of college. I grew terribly uncomfortable "violating" players and coaches' privacy, but it was part of my job to do this (and the reason why I got out of that sick field). So I see where you're coming from. Journalistic behavior is voyeuristic at its core, but as a nation in which rights are guaranteed, the law favors the journalists on this issue.
Now had Barrett been a journalist and had he done the despicable thing that he did to Ms. Andrews in the interest of journalistic access, then he'd have a claim (similar to the claims made by paparazzi). But he didn't. He did this as a private citizen attempting to capitalize on Ms. Andrews beauty, and also probably because he is a sick freak who had way too much time on his hands.
This is a journalism-rights question that's long been decided by both legal scholars and several Supreme Court decisions (when the court leaned both Left and Right, similar decisions were handed down). These decisions claim that because athletes are public figures, then the media has access to them. Further, professional sports organizations work out the rules with the media on who they can interview and when they can do this. Journalists are much more at the mercy of the sports organization (in college these rules are much more stringent). Think about it, journalists have to do what the management tells them to do, for the most part, or the journalist risks losing access. If a journalist loses access to the teams' player that s/he covers, then that journalist's media organization loses a competitive advantage.
To make your argument a little more persuasive, it'd be helpful if you could show instances in which male athletes opposed locker room interviews because of decency issues and personal privacy. As a blanket rule, most public figures probably oppose interviews by the media, but it's part and parcel of their status as public figures. They don't have to be interviewed, and many have been evasive when the journalists track them down (i.e. Ricky Williams, among others, his former coach Jim Haslett basically insulted journalists routinely in his press conferences). The relationship between athletes (and most public figures in general) is an adversarial one. Both parties lie and both exploit. In the case of the athletes here, they have power as well. They can use their intelligence to thwart journalists' desire to interview them. Reporters seek comments from the figure(s) who will give them the best sound-bytes and quotes. When players answer in "yes" or "no" questions, the reporter then becomes bored and looks for their next victim. In terms of locker-room interviews, perhaps they should use this tactic to diffuse the invasion by the reporters.
(on a side not here and something that is very relevant, the rock star Jim Morrison of the Doors fame was routinely hounded by the media. He was very adept at being such a jerk in the interviews, that demand for these went down as his career progressed. In short, journalists couldn't deal with his intelligence and never figured out a way to combat his implied evasiveness. See youtube interviews with I think a Rolling Stone reporter and you can see how Morrison took control of the interview and the journalist was stymied by Morrison's intelligence.)
I once worked as a sports reporter when I was right out of college. I grew terribly uncomfortable "violating" players and coaches' privacy, but it was part of my job to do this (and the reason why I got out of that sick field). So I see where you're coming from. Journalistic behavior is voyeuristic at its core, but as a nation in which rights are guaranteed, the law favors the journalists on this issue.
Now had Barrett been a journalist and had he done the despicable thing that he did to Ms. Andrews in the interest of journalistic access, then he'd have a claim (similar to the claims made by paparazzi). But he didn't. He did this as a private citizen attempting to capitalize on Ms. Andrews beauty, and also probably because he is a sick freak who had way too much time on his hands.
American's don't get their rights from the Supreme Court. As we have seen in the past blacks of African descent are property and can never be US citizens. So much for the Supreme Court.
The subject of this thread is Erin Andrews getting a taste of her own medicine. To my knowledge she has never extended the same respect to the athletes she interviews that she would have others extend to her. Show me an instance in which Ms. Andrews asked permission to violate the player's privacy. Show me when Ms. Andrews campaigned for the exclusion of all reporters from all locker rooms because it violated the players privacy. Do that and I'll apologize for failing to recognize Ms. Andrews as a respectful and conscientious individual who genuinely cares about the privacy of others.
To make a living in PC America, male athletes have to allow their privacy to be violated by females whose professionalism in the male locker room varies.
"Then I discover that I’m in the way because Eric Karros — who is 15 times better looking in person — asked me to move so he could get by. Gulp!
Just then, Shawn Green emerges from the showers, rubbing a towel on his head and wearing only a towel. Three millimeters thick of terry cloth is separating Green’s goodies from my life’s most embarrassing moment. I really didn’t have that much time to think about it before Green whipped off the towel and began to get dressed. Holy &#$@!!!"
American's don't get their rights from the Supreme Court. As we have seen in the past blacks of African descent are property and can never be US citizens. So much for the Supreme Court.
The subject of this thread is Erin Andrews getting a taste of her own medicine. To my knowledge she has never extended the same respect to the athletes she interviews that she would have others extend to her. Show me an instance in which Ms. Andrews asked permission to violate the player's privacy. Show me when Ms. Andrews campaigned for the exclusion of all reporters from all locker rooms because it violated the players privacy. Do that and I'll apologize for failing to recognize Ms. Andrews as a respectful and conscientious individual who genuinely cares about the privacy of others.
To make a living in PC America, male athletes have to allow their privacy to be violated by females whose professionalism in the male locker room varies.
"Then I discover that I’m in the way because Eric Karros — who is 15 times better looking in person — asked me to move so he could get by. Gulp!
Just then, Shawn Green emerges from the showers, rubbing a towel on his head and wearing only a towel. Three millimeters thick of terry cloth is separating Green’s goodies from my life’s most embarrassing moment. I really didn’t have that much time to think about it before Green whipped off the towel and began to get dressed. Holy &#$@!!!"
-Patti Shea 08/21/2002
This post shows that you do not wish to have a discussion. Therefore, I'm out.
How do you know for a fact that Erin Andrews walks in on athletes while they are naked? This used to be a much bigger problem 20 years ago when athletes complained about Hannah Storm forcing her way into the mens locker room. Since then, teams have taken measures to better divide the locker room to ensure privacy in a bathing area and the locker room. If a player chooses to disrobe in areas in front of female reporters, that is up their discretion but there are areas that are private that reporters don't enter. Even if this was the case, don't you think there is a difference in the intent? The reporter is trying to interview the person. The peeping tom is trying to videotape her for the sake of selling the tape to various pornographic sources. You can't distinguish between these two situations? This perpetrator got incredibly lucky he didn't serve any jail time. He stalked Andrews with the intent of recording her and selling the tape on-line. This judge was completely wrong. I am a male and one doesn't need to be a female to understand and respect women's rights. I'm not a feminist, just a decent human being who can recognize right from wrong.
Thank you for at least understanding. She is indeed not a pepping tom, she has a job to do and the male athletes know it, she also is not videotaping these guys, for the sake of pornographic material distributed for the public. hIS INTENT was for a different purpose.
Thank you for at least understanding. She is indeed not a pepping tom, she has a job to do and the male athletes know it, she also is not videotaping these guys, for the sake of pornographic material distributed for the public. hIS INTENT was for a different purpose.
Yes, his intent was for a different purpose. But the issue, and the subject of this thread is her indifference to the privacy of male athletes while boo-hooing the violation of her own. We don't have male reporters in female locker rooms, and I've never heard of Ms. Andrews speaking out in favor of a single standard for all athletes regardless of gender. How is it that she is not also a pig?
Michael barrett was sentenced to 30 months in federal prison. Erin andrews nude images are on the net forever. I think parole, heavy fine & community service would of been a better sentence. The us is jail crazy. Erin andrews is a bit of a ditz & she will be on dancing with the tards....UGH!
Michael barrett was sentenced to 30 months in federal prison. Erin andrews nude images are on the net forever. I think parole, heavy fine & community service would of been a better sentence. The us is jail crazy. Erin andrews is a bit of a ditz & she will be on dancing with the tards....UGH!
I personally think Barrett should have gotten at least five years plus life-time probation so he has to register as a sex offender from now on. We can't allow someone with a mental process like his to go unsupervised. The fact that Ms. Andrews was the target of his obsession was incidental. It could have been anyone, but it happened to be a woman who has, when given the opportunity, shown little regard for the privacy of male athletes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
