Speaking as an older non-frumpy woman, Ms. Andrews has always behaved like a lady. She is young and attractive, and taking advantage of that while she can. Good for her.
She didn’t consent to being filmed naked or having those images distributed. It has caused her harm and embarassment. If what happened to her had happened to me when I was her age, I would have wanted to crawl in a hole and die. It’s awful, and I can’t even begin to image how this has affected her mentally and emotionally. I hope she gets whatever amount she finds satisfactory.
I guess I need to point out that I was just expressing what I think might end up happening, not what I think SHOULD happen.
I am basing my reasoning on what I have observed about human nature and various subtle forms of envy or jealousy; I recall from some of the Sociology classes that I took, many moons ago, that there were studies that showed how some groups of people tended to judge very attractive members of their own sex in a harsher, more negative light than people who were “plainer” or at least more similar in appearance to themselves.
I can’t be the only person who has witnessed a stunning woman who walks into a crowded bar or a party getting daggers shot at her from some of the other females in the room…
I can’t quantify it exactly, but I can determine that exists, and make comparisons to my know experiences, that I know are shared to some degree by all others. I have no way of knowing that someone actually experienced great embarassment about something. I couldn’t give a rat’s ass if naked pictures of me were all over the internet (most people would prefer to look at a rat’s ass over mine though). What if someone has a ‘wardrobe malfunction’? Are they less embarassed. And look at the ‘Nipple Rule’ that **Justin_Bailey ** refers to. Why is the exposure of slightly more skin worth millions of dollars?
Now this isn’t the way our justice system works, just my opinions on the subject, and they aren’t limited to this case. I don’t like compensation for emotional damage of this sort at all. She wasn’t kidnapped and tortured. People just saw her naked. She should get over it. I don’t mind the hotel paying out lots of money because they failed to provide a reasonable level of security (if that is the case), but not because some talking tits had her feelings hurt. Who’s compensating me because I am horrified to live in a culture where a person who actually knows something about sports and journalism didn’t get the job she did based primarily on her looks?
I was once that woman getting the evil eye from other women because their husbands trailed off in mid-conversation to look at me when I walked into the room.
I have a hard time believing, aside from someone suffering from a mental illness, that any of those women would have thought it was ok if I were violated in some way just because their husband obviously liked how I looked.
Well, yes. Just as a woman may have sex voluntarily on many occasions, and it is only on the occasion where she is raped, i.e., has no control over the sex, when she feels violated.
To minimize her harm in this case because it hinged on a lack of control is precisely equivalent to one of the most pernicious justifications for rape: “she was a slut anyway.”
She had a reasonable expectation of privacy in her hotel room. If she was naked on a beach, not so much expectation going on there. If I were in the jury, she would get the money.
Are you saying that looking at a woman who doesn’t want to be looked at is the equivalent of rape? I don’t disagree that her privacy was violated. I disagree with the idea of compensating someone for unsubstantiable claims of emotional distress. By your reasoning the perpetrator should be prosecuted for rape if she claimed that she felt like she had been raped.
I don’t see how anyone could interpret it that way. It was in reaction to the notion that “she has flaunted her body” or “worn revealing clothes” and other similar sentiments offered as evidence that she couldn’t have been really traumatized by the peephole incidents. She may have revealed her body on any number of occasions, to a degree she was comfortable with, and that does not minimize the trauma of someone taking naked pictures of her against her will and putting them on the Internet. The fact that it’s forced upon her makes it a violation, the same way a rape victim’s sexual history does NOT change that aspect. That’s how it’s equivalent to rape; your response is a straw man.
I don’t know why this is so difficult, or why some people seem to have such emotion invested in asserting that she really didn’t suffer anything “real.” Of course she did, and the law covers such damages (I know, I know, in your Utopia no damage that can’t be objectively measured counts, for some ridiculous reason).
Guys. Imagine some gay dudes at your work decided to put together a little jerk-off newsletter featuring pictures of men. They get these pictures through cameras in your work’s bathroom. Your picture is there- including your penis, pictures of you shitting, etc.
They distribute this newsletter wisely- it’s pretty much everywhere you can get a newspaper, being given away for free. Your boss, daughter, parents, exes, etc. are all bound to see it.
No harm, right? Wouldn’t make you uncomfortable at all? I mean, you urinate in the visual space of other people all the time- why should it bother you?
I believe she did suffer damages for having her privacy violated. I don’t believe her claim of emotional distress leads to any objective measure of compensation. And I do not believe that you can suffer real trauma from an act you are unaware of. Finding out unpleasant information is not fun, but not harmful to the extent of millions of dollars even if it were possible to know that such distress exists.
Is she willing to have these pictures shown in court? This would seem to me to be necessary in order to prove the event happened, and in this case, proof that the level of emotional distress is not so great.
Please note that I repeatedly stated that she should be compensated for the violation of rights, and set no limit on the compensation. I just don’t believe emotional distress is measurable and should be used as a basis for calculating the damages. The likely existence of emotional distress could be considered as a factor in determining that a wrongful act occurred, but I don’t like the system of awarding more money to the person who cries the most.
She is now aware of it. And that’s why we have courts for such matters, to determine, by a reasonable man standard, what the level of damages are when there’s no objective way to measure them, but the damages are real.
That’s one of the sillier, more-circular arguments I’ve seen on these boards. So, to use our rape analogy again, a rape victim shouldn’t want to relive the trauma through her testimony, so a willingness to do so is proof she wasn’t really traumatized. Am I getting your paradox correctly? The only way to prove anyone experienced pain and suffering damages is for them not to sue, since in doing so, they will necessarily need to introduce evidence of the very thing that traumatized them. The only ones who experienced true pain and suffering are those who decide not to sue. Is that the logic?
In this case I suspect her level of emotional distress is tempered by how much she profits. She is not seeking justice for a criminal act now, she is asking for compensatory damages for emotional distress, something unproven, and unproveable.
And stop comparing this to rape. She was not touched in any way.
And why do you think the punitive damages in this case should be so minimal that she does not receive just compensation on that basis?
Like ALL cases of emotional distress. That’s why we have courts. It is absolutely provable, against a “reasonable man” standard, which is how courts typically assess such matters. You think there’s no way to assess this. There is.
I’m done with you. Apparently analogies are beyond you, except in instances where they are identical in every aspect. And it was even explained to you. “So you think this is equivalent to rape?” “Only in this aspect.” “But wait, how can this be like rape when she wasn’t even touched!” Sheesh.
Did someone, without her consent, engage in sexualized behavior of which she was an object?
In that way, it is like rape. In other ways, it is not like rape.
Sometimes people suggest that a rape victim wasn’t badly harmed, since she’d already had sex with other dudes. That’s a bullshit argument.
Here you’re suggesting that a victim of a voyeur wasn’t badly harmed, since she’d already shown her body off in other contexts. It’s the same bullshit argument.
The act isn’t the same thing as rape, but your minimization of it is the same as other folks’ minimization of rape.
even sven, the fact that I’d be only mildly creeped out by your scenario, not badly traumatized, is irrelevant. Again, the guiding question isn’t whether I’d be damaged by the events in question; the question is whether a large segment of the population would be predictably damaged by the events in question.
I’m just grasping around to convey some of the emotional impact that this kind of violation can have. I’m completely baffled by the “Eh, it’s no big deal” people. I can’t imagine not being horrified by this.