# Erin Andrews is awarded 55 million by jury. **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [March 8, 2016, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erin-andrews-is-awarded-55-million-by-jury/748244 "2016-03-08T00:08:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![crazyjoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f14d63/32.png) [@crazyjoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crazyjoe)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2016, 6:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erin-andrews-is-awarded-55-million-by-jury/748244/181 "2016-03-09T06:51:08Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > What hotels do you go to, and why? For the past 15 years at least all hotels I stay at write my room number on the envelope with my key card and never, ever say it. And I get directions to the elevator. If it is an outside hotel, they may draw directions on the map. Oh, you know, small brands like Marriott, Hyatt, Hilton, Drury… ---
**Author:** ![Rigamarole](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/77aa72/32.png) [@Rigamarole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rigamarole)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2016, 8:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erin-andrews-is-awarded-55-million-by-jury/748244/182 "2016-03-09T08:31:39Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Holy shit - you’re telling people _to google these pictures?_ WTF? These pictures were taken without her knowledge, against her will, and a jury found she was damaged by this and you’re _telling people to google them?_ What the HELL is wrong with you? Considering she’s getting paid more than most of us will ever earn in our lifetimes for these pics, we kind of have a _duty_ to look. And then feel deeply saddened by the knowledge that **everything we will ever do** is worth less to society than this blurry garbage was as fap material for someone. ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Shine](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr_shine/32/464_2.png) [@Mr\_Shine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Shine)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2016, 8:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erin-andrews-is-awarded-55-million-by-jury/748244/183 "2016-03-09T08:54:47Z")
No thinking person would think this is an appropriate amount of compensation. If **Banquet Bear** thinks it is an appropriate amount then **Banquet Bear** is not a thinking person. QED ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2016, 11:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erin-andrews-is-awarded-55-million-by-jury/748244/184 "2016-03-09T11:17:43Z")
> [@Rigamarole](#): > > Considering she’s getting paid more than most of us will ever earn in our lifetimes for these pics, we kind of have a _duty_ to look. And then feel deeply saddened by the knowledge that **everything we will ever do** is worth less to society than this blurry garbage was as fap material for someone. I don’t know whether that’s a joke or sarcasm, but I find it so deeply offensive I’m speechless. No, you don’t have a “duty” to look at nude pictures of a woman who never consented to have those pictures taken in the first place. It’s only slightly less funny than rape. ---
**Author:** ![psychonaut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/psychonaut/32/4655_2.png) [@psychonaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychonaut)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2016, 11:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erin-andrews-is-awarded-55-million-by-jury/748244/185 "2016-03-09T11:59:01Z")
> [@Rigamarole](#): > > Considering she’s getting paid more than most of us will ever earn in our lifetimes for these pics, we kind of have a _duty_ to look. And then feel deeply saddened by the knowledge that **everything we will ever do** is worth less to society than this blurry garbage was as fap material for someone. This has got to rank as one of the most disgusting things I have ever had the misfortune of reading on these boards. ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2016, 12:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erin-andrews-is-awarded-55-million-by-jury/748244/186 "2016-03-09T12:36:24Z")
> [@Rigamarole](#): > > Considering she’s getting paid more than most of us will ever earn in our lifetimes for these pics, we kind of have a _duty_ to look. And then feel deeply saddened by the knowledge that **everything we will ever do** is worth less to society than this blurry garbage was as fap material for someone. I’m sure this is sarcasm, but if not: WTF is wrong with you? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2016, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erin-andrews-is-awarded-55-million-by-jury/748244/187 "2016-03-09T13:25:44Z")
> [@Mr\_Shine](#): > > No thinking person would think this is an appropriate amount of compensation. If **Banquet Bear** thinks it is an appropriate amount then **Banquet Bear** is not a thinking person. QED The problem with this No True Scotsman argument is that you have a bunch of people who are now defined as non-thinking. The jury, for example. ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Shine](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr_shine/32/464_2.png) [@Mr\_Shine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Shine)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2016, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erin-andrews-is-awarded-55-million-by-jury/748244/188 "2016-03-09T13:50:24Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The problem with this No True Scotsman argument is that you have a bunch of people who are now defined as non-thinking. The jury, for example. I would quite happily define the jury that awarded this ludicrous sum as non-thinking. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2016, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erin-andrews-is-awarded-55-million-by-jury/748244/189 "2016-03-09T14:00:54Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > > [@needscoffee](#): > > > > The hotel was hugely negligent in allowing her room number to be revealed to absolutely anyone who asked to talk to her on the phone. That’s mind-boggling stupid. > > That is not what happened AFAICT. Feel free to correct me if I am misreading these articles, but what happened was that he independently found out the hotel where she was staying, then he called the hotel operator from an in-house phone asking to be connected to her. Because of a quirk in the phone system, he was able to see the room number when he was connected. So you’re saying the hotel allowed her room number to be visible to anyone who asked to talk to her. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2016, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erin-andrews-is-awarded-55-million-by-jury/748244/190 "2016-03-09T14:11:18Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > I don’t know whether that’s a joke or sarcasm, but I find it so deeply offensive I’m speechless. > > No, you don’t have a “duty” to look at nude pictures of a woman who never consented to have those pictures taken in the first place. It’s only slightly less funny than rape. Give me a break. You had a lot to write for being “speechless.” 55 million is headline news. It’s being discussed in the context of how this woman was harmed by a video being taken. If I’m to have an opinion as to the degree, and amount, of harm she suffered I really have the right to know whether or not this is true. I should not be required to take anyone’s word for it. That’s the way it works here. Someone makes a claim, others call for a cite, and the matter is reviewed and digested. That’s what happened here. Someone claimed the pictures didn’t justify a 55 million award. I have a right to know how much of her privacy was exposed, for how long and thereafter consider her claim. Just like the jury did. I also have a right to know how she was harmed, and to what degree this harm has caused her to suffer. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2016, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erin-andrews-is-awarded-55-million-by-jury/748244/191 "2016-03-09T14:26:05Z")
> [@Mr\_Shine](#): > > I would quite happily define the jury that awarded this ludicrous sum as non-thinking. Do you agree that “non-thinking,” is hyperbole? ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2016, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erin-andrews-is-awarded-55-million-by-jury/748244/192 "2016-03-09T14:30:59Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > One of the problems in the United States, at the level of government and policy, is that many of the same people who argue for “tort reform” and an end to high punitive damages have, historically, been among the same people who consistently argue against tighter government regulation of industry. > > _ **You** _ might be arguing that what we need is a system of better oversight and regulation, because it will work better than a sort of lottery that we get with the current tort system. I can see the merit in that argument. I have argued, in the past, that criminal laws should be expanded to encompass certain corporate behaviors that are currently shielded from criminal prosecution, and that regulatory fines (paid to the state, and not simply to a plaintiff) should be increased considerably. > > Unfortunately, though, there have been plenty of people who argue that we need to get rid of both safeguards - regulation _ **and** _ punitive damages. In the absence of a regulatory system that provides for sufficient penalties and other deterrents, i think that having a system of punitive damages is, for all of its drawbacks, better than nothing. Well, in the absence of regulation, I’d agree. However, I would once again urge that actual policymakers look to international examples. In many ways, the current US regulatory system (never mind what people have been advocating for) isn’t particularly unique as it currently stands - in some areas it is more fulsome than the Canadian, which I am more familiar with. However, the US legal system is; as far as I know, nowhere else has the same mixture of jury trials in civil cases combined with massive punitive damages awards. The question being - does the US get a uniquely impressive record of corporate safety as a result of its unique legal safeguard? In short, are the costs (which are largely hidden from the ordinary person, who has no way of relating how the headline-making tort lottery winnings actually relate to them personally) “worth it” in terms of increased public safety? I realize this goes beyond the ambit of what can be argued here with real evidence, as none of us are in a position to actually make this comparison with precision; however, I find it hard to imagine that a cost/benefit analysis will pay off. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2016, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erin-andrews-is-awarded-55-million-by-jury/748244/193 "2016-03-09T14:31:02Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > Give me a break. You had a lot to write for being “speechless.” > > 55 million is headline news. It’s being discussed in the context of how this woman was harmed by a video being taken. If I’m to have an opinion as to the degree, and amount, of harm she suffered I really have the right to know whether or not this is true. I should not be required to take anyone’s word for it. > > That’s the way it works here. Someone makes a claim, others call for a cite, and the matter is reviewed and digested. That’s what happened here. Someone claimed the pictures didn’t justify a 55 million award. I have a right to know how much of her privacy was exposed, for how long and thereafter consider her claim. Just like the jury did. I also have a right to know how she was harmed, and to what degree this harm has caused her to suffer. Interestingly, though, your method incrementally increases the violation of her privacy. Do you agree that she has a right to determine whether people see her naked form? Can you explain why you were unable to rely on descriptions of the video, which are generally uncontested? That is, no one seems to disagree that the video shows Ms. Andrews, unclothed, walking in her hotel room and standing in front of a mirror. What additional information did watching the video give you? ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2016, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erin-andrews-is-awarded-55-million-by-jury/748244/194 "2016-03-09T14:40:38Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I would suspect that any decent regulatory system would cost a lot more then $55 million per year, which would be paid for not just by hotels which screw up but also those who do not. How many inspectors would you have to hire to inspect more than once every few years? Would they even have caught this security breach? If you can guarantee that no one would be hurt that would be one thing, but restaurants and food processors get inspected all the time and there are still problems. They know they can get sued also. > You’ve already heard how good hotels handle this problem. I’m sure no one will make the same mistake again. > If the hotel did it maliciously I’m sure there would be criminal penalties also. The case I described wasn’t malicious either - just careless. And maybe cheap. No one guarantees anyone a profit. Not so sure - there are plenty of industry self-regulatory organizations that cost less than that. They do things like crate and publish codes of conduct, award certifications, and the like. But even if it cost more - the point is that an actual system of regulation is supposed to do more than prevent _a single incident_. It is supposed to improve the quality of service _generally_, for everyone using the services. I have no problem with this hotel getting sued if it screws up, as it clearly has here. The thing is, damages ought to be limited _to what the victim actually suffered_, not with some sort of exponential multiplier to “pour encourager les autres”. The legal system has a valuable role to play as a “gap filler”, or sanction of last resort, but it is IMO a misuse of the instrument to use it as the line of _first_ defense. ---
**Author:** ![psychonaut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/psychonaut/32/4655_2.png) [@psychonaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychonaut)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2016, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erin-andrews-is-awarded-55-million-by-jury/748244/195 "2016-03-09T14:51:23Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > I have a right to know how much of her privacy was exposed, for how long and thereafter consider her claim. Just like the jury did. I also have a right to know how she was harmed, and to what degree this harm has caused her to suffer. Since when does American law grant the public the right to view evidence in civil proceedings? If there were a case where someone recorded the rape and assault of a child, and that child later sued the attacker for damages, would you also demand to watch the video just so you could form an opinion on the propriety of the verdict? ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2016, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erin-andrews-is-awarded-55-million-by-jury/748244/196 "2016-03-09T14:54:10Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Interestingly, though, your method incrementally increases the violation of her privacy. > > Do you agree that she has a right to determine whether people see her naked form? > > Can you explain why you were unable to rely on descriptions of the video, which are generally uncontested? That is, no one seems to disagree that the video shows Ms. Andrews, unclothed, walking in her hotel room and standing in front of a mirror. What additional information did watching the video give you? I’m sure you agree that the jury needed to see the video to accurately arrive at their opinion and determine the appropriate remedy. Now, in the context of a thread on the SDMB. A question is raised regarding the appropriateness of a high jury award. I really have two choices, I can rely on what other people say, which is sometimes problematic, or I can ask for a cite, review the material, and thereafter opine that her privacy was violated, the degree of the violation, and the extent of any outrage I may feel against against those who violated her. We see video’s all the time in cop related shooting incidents. It’s only after watching that video that one can form an opinion instead of adopting an opinion held by others. It’s newsworthy in the sense of a 55 million dollar verdict so it’s open to review for the purpose of forming an opinion on the matter. Now, downloading, and circulating a copy would certainly be further violating her privacy, but that’s not what happens when someone views the matter _one time_, for the purpose of determining whether 55 million dollars is justified in discussing the matter on a message board. ---
**Author:** ![madmonk28](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madmonk28/32/20811_2.png) [@madmonk28](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madmonk28)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2016, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erin-andrews-is-awarded-55-million-by-jury/748244/197 "2016-03-09T14:58:27Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > Give me a break. You had a lot to write for being “speechless.” > > 55 million is headline news. It’s being discussed in the context of how this woman was harmed by a video being taken. If I’m to have an opinion as to the degree, and amount, of harm she suffered I really have the right to know whether or not this is true. I should not be required to take anyone’s word for it… Interesting rationale for voyeuristic watching of a sex crime. Could a pedophile use your argument to look at kiddy porn? ---
**Author:** ![Living\_Well\_Is\_Best\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/6bbea6/32.png) [@Living\_Well\_Is\_Best\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Living_Well_Is_Best_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2016, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erin-andrews-is-awarded-55-million-by-jury/748244/198 "2016-03-09T15:02:52Z")
> [@Rigamarole](#): > > Considering she’s getting paid more than most of us will ever earn in our lifetimes for these pics, we kind of have a _duty_ to look. And then feel deeply saddened by the knowledge that **everything we will ever do** is worth less to society than this blurry garbage was as fap material for someone. A duty to look? WTF ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2016, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erin-andrews-is-awarded-55-million-by-jury/748244/199 "2016-03-09T15:05:20Z")
> [@madmonk28](#): > > Interesting rationale for voyeuristic watching of a sex crime. Could a pedophile use your argument to look at kiddy porn? We have pedophiles participating in threads on kiddy porn here at the SDMB? Please try a little harder to stay within the lines when responding to me. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2016, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erin-andrews-is-awarded-55-million-by-jury/748244/200 "2016-03-09T15:08:41Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > Give me a break. You had a lot to write for being “speechless.” Clearly you are unfamiliar with the way I normally natter one when I’m NOT speechless! > [@Morgenstern](#): > > That’s the way it works here. Someone makes a claim, others call for a cite, and the matter is reviewed and digested. That’s what happened here. Someone claimed the pictures didn’t justify a 55 million award. I have a right to know how much of her privacy was exposed, for how long and thereafter consider her claim. Just like the jury did. I also have a right to know how she was harmed, and to what degree this harm has caused her to suffer. No, actually you do NOT have those “rights”. The _court_, and by extension the judge and jury, have the right to that knowledge, you do not. You are an unconnected bystander. You only have the “right” to know what the court system and the victim deems fit to release to the public. > [@Malthus](#): > > I have no problem with this hotel getting sued if it screws up, as it clearly has here. The thing is, damages ought to be limited _to what the victim actually suffered_, not with some sort of exponential multiplier to “pour encourager les autres”. Define “damages” Is it solely the dollar cost to a career? Is it the cost of psychiatric therapy for on-going mental problems stemming from an incident? Is it the cost of personal security (human staff or otherwise) in order to prevent a repeat of the same? Again - when I sued someone for failure to pay wages (granted, a very different subject but still damages addressed in a civil suit) the _law itself_ dictated that I not receive “the actual cost” of what was denied me but _seven times_ that amount. And, having been through it, the cost to me was not the lost wages, but also the lost time from work to go to court, the cost of a lawyer, the interest on the money I had to borrow to make rent and bills while the bitch held onto the money I had earned and left me without income, and a lot of mental energy and anger over the whole affair. So… not _just_ the dollar amount to her career, but the cost of therapy, of greater security, of lawyers, court filing fees, and sleeplessness nights. Is 55 million excessive? I don’t have an opinion on that, other than to say that I think awards in other, less publicized cases probably should be more rather than less. Part of the award is to acknowledge that there are non-monetary damages to a victim as well as hard dollar amounts, and costs involved with bringing a case like this to court. > [@Morgenstern](#): > > I’m sure you agree that the jury needed to see the video to accurately arrive at their opinion and determine the appropriate remedy. Yes. > [@](#): > > A question is raised regarding the appropriateness of a high jury award. I really have two choices, I can rely on what other people say, which is sometimes problematic, or I can ask for a cite, review the material, and thereafter opine that her privacy was violated, the degree of the violation, and the extent of any outrage I may feel against against those who violated her. The difference is that a message board is NOT a court of law – no, you _do not_ have a right to violate someone’s privacy or confidentiality to “win” a thread. Sometimes, you just have to acknowledge you do not and _can not_ know all pertinent information. > [@](#): > > We see video’s all the time in cop related shooting incidents. It’s only after watching that video that one can form an opinion instead of adopting an opinion held by others. Oddly enough, though, we do NOT see the actual moment of death. If the cop dash cam films someone running naked through the street versions released to the public are pixelated. Names of victims of sexual assault are not released to the public without the victim’s permission. So even in those cases the “right” of the public to know things is restricted. There’s a point where your “right” to know is blocked by the target of attention’s right to privacy and confidentiality. > [@](#): > > It’s newsworthy in the sense of a 55 million dollar verdict so it’s open to review for the purpose of forming an opinion on the matter. You have a right to an opinion. You do NOT have a right to violate this woman’s privacy AGAIN in order to form that opinion. > [@](#): > > Now, downloading, and circulating a copy would certainly be further violating her privacy, but that’s not what happens when someone views the matter _one time_, for the purpose of determining whether 55 million dollars is justified in discussing the matter on a message board. If she has been raped on film instead of merely filmed naked would you say that you also had a right to watch that video of an actual crime in order to form an “opinion”? Why? Can’t you decide on just the fact a rape was committed whether there was a crime or not? Is it right or wrong to secretly film a woman naked without her knowledge or consent, yes or no? That’s not a difficult question to answer, and shouldn’t need qualifications like “is she pretty or not?”. For me the answer is simple: filming people naked without their consent is wrong. I don’t need to see the video to figure that out. Why do you? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erin-andrews-is-awarded-55-million-by-jury/748244.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/erin-andrews-is-awarded-55-million-by-jury/748244.md?page=11)