Erin Andrews violated

[Evil ... Thy name is Orville Redenbacher!!]

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.

Sorry, but this sounds a heck of a lot like the she-was-asking-for-it defense.

 

[Inky_Wretch]

This kind of reminds me after Princess Diana died and there was an outcry that the paparazzi caused the wreck. There was great hand-wringing about what should be done to protect celebrities from the paparazzi. Now, years later, I'd imagine it's even worse than back then.

(That's not to say I absolve the blogs who posted every EA item possible to drive hits and page views.)

 

[ink-stained wretch]

Many newspapers have adult supervision, or used to. The internet does not.

 

[Chef]

If anyone has seen the video, can you tell it's her?

Someone said the video was shot through the peephole in the door?

 

[mb]

If anyone has seen the video, can you tell it's her?

Someone said the video was shot through the peephole in the door?

1. There's no way to tell it's her, specifically. You can tell, though, that it's somebody who REALLY REALLY REALLY looks like her.

2. http://www.spygadgets.com/peephole-reverser.htm

 

[SoCalDude]

I saw about a 5-second video. I don't know if that is the whole thing or not.
I was skeptical before seeing it because you can hardly ID people looking through those things the correct way. This looked more like a hole in the wall. And there's no question it's her, especially since the lawyers said it was.

 

[21]

The hotel chain is probably not feeling too good right now.

If the perv was an employee, yeah I would be shirtting bricks if I was the hotel. If not, I'm pretty sure they can argue that what was done could have happened at any hotel.

I'd have to agree with you on that one. All the hotel chain will suffer is some bad PR. I don't see how they could be legally liable unless the shooter is an employee.

It goes under the heading of Premises Liability and there's an ocean of case law on the subject. Basically, property owners have to provide a reasonable degree of security, and in this case, you'd claim that the hotel was negligent in doing so. Seems you could argue there was indeed some negligence if the peeper was able to stand outside her door with a spy gadget to the peephole for a prolonged period of time.

I have to believe most major hotels would rather settle than get into prolonged litigation with a celebrity who was videotaped naked in her room.

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

 

[NoOneLikesUs]

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.

 

[Boom_70]

Clearly a good product placement for Blackberry.

 

[Johnny Dangerously]

What does this have to do with BlackBerry?

 

[PeteyPirate]

You have to see the video to get that one.

 

[Smasher_Sloan]

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.