Erin Andrews violated

[bigpern23]

And I didn't catch the name of the hotel, but I sure as heck would never stay there after this.

I don't think the location of the incident has been determined yet.

It's apparently a place that doesn't provide complimentary robes.

Hiyooooo!!!!

 

[Armchair_QB]

I don't see how somebody could stand outside a hotel room door with one of those reverser gadgets and not be seen by somebody. This had to be a hole in the wall or something like that.

 

[Inky_Wretch]

I don't see how somebody could stand outside a hotel room door with one of those reverser gadgets and not be seen by somebody. This had to be a hole in the wall or something like that.

Perhaps he had a lookout.

 

[Boom_70]

Moddy has just added black tape to his travel packing list to go with has ass scented candles.

 

[outofplace]

I think if you have a professional interest in photos of Erin Andrews' (completely dressed) breasts and butt, you're being incredibly intellectually and morally dishonest by expressing outrage when someone else takes it a step further. As in, 'it's okay when we do it, she's just there asking for it.'

So if I enjoy the view as a coworker walks away, am I not allowed to be disgusted when that co-worker is sexually assaulted at a party the next night?

Saying EA is in her position partly because of her looks is like saying an NBA player is in his position partly because of his height -- it's obvious and unnecessary. But you walk down a college campus and you'll see a dozen guys who are 6-8 who can't play and a dozen girls as pretty as EA who couldn't read a prompter, let alone do what she does.

That said, pretending that "enjoying the view" is just a short hop from this violation is pretty intellectually and morally dishonest, as well.

This isn't about 'enjoying the view.' These are websites that profit from stories and pictures--ooh, a sandwich! She's eating a big sandwich! Schwing!! Or rather, ka-ching!!

And that's fine with me, she profits too.

Just spare us Deadspin's hand-wringing over the gravity of this particular incident, when they didn't hesitate to post the link to the video when it fell into their hands. Because, oops, they didn't realize at first it was a really lousy thing--criminal, even--that happened to Erin.

21, this sounds like two different discussions. I agree that it is a joke to actually post the link, then later go on about how horrible the incident was.

But you also linked this to the discussion of the USC player dancing behind her, as if not taking that seriously somehow led to her privacy being violated in a criminal manner with this peephole tape. Those two incidents are worlds apart. One is just childish and stupid. The other is a criminal violation.

 

[Lava Man]

Just spare us Deadspin's hand-wringing over the gravity of this particular incident, when they didn't hesitate to post the link to the video when it fell into their hands. Because, oops, they didn't realize at first it was a really lousy thing--criminal, even--that happened to Erin.

I'll join the chorus of people who can't believe they're defending Deadspin, but this is flat wrong. Deadspin didn't link to the video. Deadspin re-printed a lawyer's e-mail in which the link was spelled out. That link was, as Daulerio explained, dead. Someone -- not Deadspin -- later found the video via Google cache, a development that was as unfortunate as it was inevitable (you can be sure this would've happened whether Deadspin redacted the link or not). Deadspin obviously has a lot to answer for, but you're dramatically mischaracterizing what happened when you say the site linked to the video.

Besides, what exactly does Deadspin stand to gain by directing traffic to some weird voyeur spank site?

 

[Inky_Wretch]

I think the fact this was on various sites for four months is interesting. That makes me think the peeper didn't know who he was filming.

 

[93Devil]

Late to the thread, but doesn't this PR release make the video more known to the public?

If she wanted this to go away, why the release?

I would have never known about this without this thread, and I do not think this thread exists without the PR release.

Am I correct with this assumption?

What happened to her is terrible, so I really do not want to type something negative towards her on this thread. I am just questioning the logic.

 

[21]

Just spare us Deadspin's hand-wringing over the gravity of this particular incident, when they didn't hesitate to post the link to the video when it fell into their hands. Because, oops, they didn't realize at first it was a really lousy thing--criminal, even--that happened to Erin.

I'll join the chorus of people who can't believe they're defending Deadspin, but this is flat wrong. Deadspin didn't link to the video. Deadspin re-printed a lawyer's e-mail in which the link was spelled out. That link was, as Daulerio explained, dead. Someone -- not Deadspin -- later found the video via Google cache, a development that was as unfortunate as it was inevitable (you can be sure this would've happened whether Deadspin redacted the link or not). Deadspin obviously has a lot to answer for, but you're dramatically mischaracterizing what happened when you say the site linked to the video.

Besides, what exactly does Deadspin stand to gain by directing traffic to some weird voyeur spank site?

I would refer you to Deadspin's semi-apology/acknowledgment that the posting of the link was mishandled, but it seems to have been removed. Hm.

Look, I get it, that's what Deadspin does, it's a business. But who gets to decide what's 'just for fun' and what's obnoxious or offensive? Does it have to be criminal before it becomes exploitive? I guess so.

 

[Armchair_QB]

Late to the thread, but doesn't this PR release make the video more known to the public?

If she wanted this to go away, why the release?

I would have never known about this without this thread, and I do not think this thread exists without the PR release.

Am I correct with this assumption?

What happened to her is terrible, so I really do not want to type something negative towards her on this thread. I am just questioning the logic.

My guess is that she's angry it happened, wants to punish the creep who did this and feels its worth the exposure to achieve that goal.

 

[Alma]

21 is the voice of reason and fairness here. Anybody defending Deadspin is just trying to be difficult or quibble over semantics.

This isn't a <i>legal</i> discussion over Deadspin's culpability. I'll let lawyers debate that. Rather, this is a moral discussion. Yes, moral. And Deadspin, and its ilk, are <i>morally</i> culpable. I don't sense Deadspin appreciates a moral attack, but, frankly, they, and their ilk, can eat shirt. They deserve it, they know it, and even if they won't admit it, they know it.

This is a site that does boffo traffic anytime it mentions Erin Andrews, so it often mentions Erin Andrews, and now it's faced with "gee, we didn't mean for <i>that</i> to happen."

Of course they didn't mean for it to happen. They meant (and hoped for) the status quo for another 5 years or so, until Andrews moved into "cougar" territory. They wanted mild, "approved" exploitation.

But this is what happens, shirt for brains, in the modern age. You don't just get to be on "other side" because of a legal line you think you didn't cross.

Now, you can bet you'll never anything like it again on Deadspin - or anywhere else.

I at least hope there is a conversation in the media about this. Erin has been treated poorly, rhetorically and actually, by so many men (and a few women) I suppose. I'm not sure ESPN has always presented her in the best light, either. As awful as this is, and as much and you'd never want to see it, hopefully people do step and at least reflect on their behavior and treatment of pretty, public women.

As for Andrews...I'd ask her if it were really worth it, covering two-bit college football games and midseason baseball for all this shirt. There are other jobs in the broadcasting industry that she could do...and not have to deal with nonsense.

 

[Johnny Dangerously]

I agree with almost everything you say here, but as to the last paragraph ... there are "I'd hit it" and "Hottest (fill in the blank)" and "Hot or not?" and much worse posts on site after site after site about every attractive woman on television. Sitcoms. Dramas. News. Weather. Sports. Tabloid TV. Etc. At least this way she gets to cover what she enjoys. She'd be meat to almost everybody whatever her broadcasting specialty would be.