Oh, you know, small brands like Marriott, Hyatt, Hilton, Drury…
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.
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
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.
This has got to rank as one of the most disgusting things I have ever had the misfortune of reading on these boards.
I’m sure this is sarcasm, but if not: WTF is wrong with you?
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.
So you’re saying the hotel allowed her room number to be visible to anyone who asked to talk to her.
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.
Do you agree that “non-thinking,” is hyperbole?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
Interesting rationale for voyeuristic watching of a sex crime. Could a pedophile use your argument to look at kiddy porn?
A duty to look? WTF
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.
Clearly you are unfamiliar with the way I normally natter one when I’m NOT speechless!
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.
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.
Yes.
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.
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.
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.
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?