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.
So any hotel that has a tenant spying on someone in an adjacent room can expect the same settlement
First, it is not a settlement.
You obviously don't understand how our legal system works.
Of course the "Average Joe" wouldn't get the same outcome. You have to show "damages", and it is obvious to anyone with a brain that a nude internet video of a celebrity is worth much more than a nude internet video of a "nobody."
She got 55 million! People have gotten far far far less for getting killed! This case is 2 injustices in one case!
The hotel didn't shoot the pictures. They were simply stupid and negligent. And they were only partially responsible. The guy with the video camera has to be about 90% responsible in my book. So multiply 90 times 55 and that's 1/2 a BILLION! Sorry but being seen naked is not worth 1/2 billion dollars. The pictures weren't even that clear.
Amazingly, the hotel V.P., who took the stand in the trial, goes to dinner that evening and his buddies are showing the video on their cell phones, and they are laughing about Andrews and making vulgar references to the video in a restaurant, and they were so loud that a waitress asked them to please stop making so much noise.
I'm fairly certain this idiot is now unemployed. Good for Andrews, glad she made bank. Marriott needs to protect the privacy of its guests, and no one should be able to wire a peep hole. She was clearly mortified to find a naked video of herself on the internet.
Why is the Marriott responsible? I feel bad for her, but its not their fault.
Yes, in part they are. He asked what room she was in and then asked to be put in the room next to her. They didn't bother informing her that someone was asking about her or asking for any credentials to prove he had the need to know.
Unfortunately, the jury didn't hear about how the manager was viewing and laughing about the video in a restaurant during the trial. When they find out, they will be glad they found for her.
I think there is a difference posing scantly clad willingly versus being filmed by a creep without consent completely naked and then having it shared everywhere.
One is a severe violation of one's privacy.
Severe?
Not really.
She likes to play both ends against the middle...a strategy that works well in a society divorced of common sense.
Modesty and/or unwanted attention was hardly an issue for flirty Andrews when she used her looks, low-cut tops and short skirts to push her career past less attractive female sports reporters and male sports reporters generally.
Now that presenting herself to the sports world as a premium POA and enjoying all the unearned benefits and privileges that comes with doing so has also brought about some very unwanted attention, little miss sugar and spice needs to fix her mascara.
Last edited by Ibginnie; 03-08-2016 at 07:40 AM..
Reason: copyright violation
She likes to play both ends against the middle...a strategy that works well in a society divorced of common sense.
Modesty and/or unwanted attention was hardly an issue for flirty Andrews when she used her looks, low-cut tops and short skirts to push her career past less attractive female sports reporters and male sports reporters generally.
Now that presenting herself to the sports world as a premium POA and enjoying all the unearned benefits and privileges that comes with doing so has also brought about some very unwanted attention, little miss sugar and spice needs to fix her mascara.
Well boo-****ing-hoo!
When did she ever willingly put images or videos of her NAKED body on the internet?
It's amazing to me that people are arguing that the jury made the wrong decision.
Oddly enough, all of those posters appear to be men.
She likes to play both ends against the middle...a strategy that works well in a society divorced of common sense.
Modesty and/or unwanted attention was hardly an issue for flirty Andrews when she used her looks, low-cut tops and short skirts to push her career past less attractive female sports reporters and male sports reporters generally.
Now that presenting herself to the sports world as a premium POA and enjoying all the unearned benefits and privileges that comes with doing so has also brought about some very unwanted attention, little miss sugar and spice needs to fix her mascara.
Well boo-****ing-hoo!
It's this type of "reasoning" that also blames the rape victims because of the way the dressed, etc. "She had it coming/She was asking for it/etc." There are several similar posts in this thread. smh
I suspect if the victim was your wife/daughter/sister you would think $55 mil wasn't enough. You'd want blood.
When did she ever willingly put images or videos of her NAKED body on the internet?
It's amazing to me that people are arguing that the jury made the wrong decision.
Oddly enough, all of those posters appear to be men.
Not really. Many older feminists would argue she is using the helpless victim stance to help herself, at the expense of others.
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.
