Erin Andrews - Awarded $55M

[JazzGal]

A sports message board isn't likely a place where women's issues are going to be treated with as much respect as we might wish. There are reasons that the women in this community have not commented on this thread.

 

[BabyPeterzz]

A sports message board isn't likely a place where women's issues are going to be treated with as much respect as we might wish. There are reasons that the women in this community have not commented on this thread.

It's embarrassing. I hope you and other female posters on JF know that not all the men on this board are represented in this thread, and that some of us do not condone this behavior.

 

[JazzGal]

It's embarrassing. I hope you and other female posters on JF know that not all the men on this board are represented in this thread, and that some of us do not condone this behavior.

I'm not trying to judge or make anyone feel bad. We know what we are getting when we are on a male-dominated sports board, and we know what types of threads to avoid. This board is certainly not a terrible place or I wouldn't be here. I am assuming that the men on this board treat women well IRL.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Thanks. I'm not trying to judge or make anyone feel bad. We know what we are getting when we are on a male-dominated sports board, and we know what types of threads to avoid. This board is certainly not a terrible place. I am assuming that most of the men on this board treat women well IRL.

I sure don't see my contribution to this thread as anti-women in the slightest. Is that how it's being perceived? My opinion of this case has absolutely nothing to do with sex.

 

[JazzGal]

I sure don't see my contribution to this thread as anti-women in the slightest. Is that how it's being perceived? My opinion of this case has absolutely nothing to do with sex.

Since you were mostly discussing the judgment, of course it wasn't anti-women. I'm not saying anyone was being anti-women.

I should have probably stuck with the "not commenting" idea. There is no way to discuss it without people getting offended, which is certainly not my intention. Let's just say that no one but Erin knows what she has gone and is going through due to this horrible violation of privacy, and the fear and distrust she has to live with now.

 

[sirkickyass]

Maybe you should read my exchange with that actual attorney a little closer. He claimed rates were offered as teasers and that I didn't know what I was talking about. This wasn't even a valid response to my earlier statement, but nevertheless I refuted his claim about insurance rates showing how things really worked. He responded with an obfuscated post essentially agreeing that the way I said things worked was correct and backing off his claim of teaser rates. Yeah, he really showed me!

I think you should read that passage again. I didn't back off anything. I allowed that rates are set by actuarial adjustment. That does not mean that the rate you are offered is, by itself, the road to profitability for an insurance company. Those rates are the teaser to allow the company to borrow your pool of funds for investment purposes. That is the basis of price competition in the industry.

Your statements on this topic are generally wildly non-responsive, which is probably why they moved in various directions you didn't want them to go, but I can assure you that there is no objective reading of that exchange that you "won." Your description of the effect of these individual judgments on the insurance rates of society at large is both inaccurate and dangerously misleading.

I have news for you. This award against Marriott will do virtually nothing to stop crazy stalkers from making their victims lives miserable. We accomplished nothing but making some attorneys rich and increasing the cost of hotel rooms.

I think the entire history of consumer class actions disproves this assessment. At some point, underwriting obligations for insurers effectively require change to occur. This is why you don't see lots of new asbestos in construction.

You are completely overlooking two things. First, life is full of risks every day, and we simply cannot insulate ourselves against all of them (especially with a strategy like this). Second, future hotel customers are the ones who will ultimately be paying this fine. Take a look at the health care situation if you really think that's a good idea. We are suing ourselves into oblivion.

On this point you're not totally wrong. I frequently lament that we don't have a doctrine in the law simply called "**** happens." However, this is not an instance of **** happens. This is an instance of gross negligence on the part of an employee and long experience has taught us that holding employer's responsible for the conduct of their employees is the best way to allocate fault and harm. Otherwise victims would rarely, if ever, be compensated for the actions done by employees in their professional capacity. You may disagree with the entire idea behind respondeat superior, but it's the way the law works and there are good reasons for it to be the way that it is.

Since you were mostly discussing the judgment, of course it wasn't anti-women. I'm not saying anyone was being anti-women.

I should have probably stuck with the "not commenting" idea. There is no way to discuss it without people getting offended, which is certainly not my intention. Let's just say that no one but Erin knows what she has gone and is going through due to this horrible violation of privacy, and the fear and distrust she has to live with now.

You should comment. Things don't get better unless people are confronted with their own awfulness. The struggle is real.

 

[fishonjazz]

Is there even the slightest chance that Andrews was not really affected by the video at all?

Some women in the world honestly don't mind lots of people seeing them naked on the internet.

 

[JazzGal]

Is there even the slightest chance that Andrews was not really affected by the video at all?

Some women in the world honestly don't mind lots of people seeing them naked on the internet.

Really? Have you listened to her talk about it? Women who choose public nudity are free to do so. But Erin did not get that choice, and that is not something that should be taken away from anyone. No one has the right to make that decision for another person.

 

[Gameface]

If Andrews wanted to pose nude for money she had plenty of opportunities to do it on her own, and she didn't. She was a professional sports journalist. While she may not have lost her job, i'd bet she was treated differently in a way she didn't want.

 

[b_line]

Is there even the slightest chance that Andrews was not really affected by the video at all?

Some women in the world honestly don't mind lots of people seeing them naked on the internet.

Even if it didn't affect her work or public life, it surely affected her personally.

It was just a horrible thing to happen to a person.

As has been said ad nauseum, she didn't chose to pose nude for all to see.

 

[fishonjazz]

Even if it didn't affect her work or public life, it surely affected her personally.

It was just a horrible thing to happen to a person.

As has been said ad nauseum, she didn't chose to pose nude for all to see.

She didn't chose it.... But what I'm saying is that for some women it wouldn't be that big a deal either.

Some women are not offended and upset by the same things as other women and some women actually purposefully put themselves nude onto the internet for all to see.
Like for instance.... If someone made this same video of pam Anderson it might not affect her personally.

Would be funny if she secretly knew the guy who made the video and they had devised this plan with the intention of getting rich off the hotel

 

[Gameface]

There are also guys who cut their junk off. So I guess Lorena Bobbitt didn't really do anything wrong.