Erin Andrews video case

[theIowaHawk]

Except that it wasn't damaged. She admitted as much during questioning. She can not prove any sort of economic damage at all from this.

Oh, I get it, you fundamentally don't understand the concept of punitive damages. You know, the ones in which she said she was damaged.

I know you like to decide what is and isn't in the world (seemingly against women), such as what IS professional dress, or what IS damage to profession, but the jury decided differently than you. That doesn't make them right, it just shows that people who actually sat through the trial disagree with you, someone who thinks she shouldn't recover ... because of what she wore one day to work.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Please. Does anyone think of her as "less of a sideline reporter" because of the video? Seriously, her career benefited from it. There are millions of people who know who she is who would not know had the video not come out.

Good to see you doubling down on the idiocy of the defense counsel, yes, she should thank this guy for improving her career. Like they proved, her next contract was for more money!

 

[hawkifann]

Good to see you doubling down on the idiocy of the defense counsel, yes, she should thank this guy for improving her career. Like they proved, her next contract was for more money!

There are a couple things going on here. Obviously, she was not irreparably harmed in her career, as she's still working many prominent games for Fox. That said, both the person who shot the video and the hotel were in the wrong. The videographer, was obviously in the wrong, as it's illegal to do what he did and he served jail time for it. That's simple.

For the hotel, there's nothing criminal, but what played out was an egregious violation of privacy. Next time a star athlete, famous actor/actress or musician comes to town, try going to their hotel and just asking for their room number or try using a phone to get their room number. Good luck. It's wrong and annoying that this idiot shot a nude video of EA, but unless the person working the desk was actually in on it (in which case he should also go to jail), he and the hotel certainly made it potentially easy for a prominent person to get assaulted/kidnapped/killed by an unhinged stalker or an enemy with a grudge.

I can't say for sure what dollar amount I would pull out of thin air on a problem like that, but I'd want the cost to be high enough to make a hotel chain as big as Marriott take it seriously and make changes.

 

[The Tradition]

There are a couple things going on here. Obviously, she was not irreparably harmed in her career, as she's still working many prominent games for Fox. That said, both the person who shot the video and the hotel were in the wrong. The videographer, was obviously in the wrong, as it's illegal to do what he did and he served jail time for it. That's simple.

For the hotel, there's nothing criminal, but what played out was an egregious violation of privacy. Next time a star athlete, famous actor/actress or musician comes to town, try going to their hotel and just asking for their room number or try using a phone to get their room number. Good luck. It's wrong and annoying that this idiot shot a nude video of EA, but unless the person working the desk was actually in on it (in which case he should also go to jail), he and the hotel certainly made it potentially easy for a prominent person to get assaulted/kidnapped/killed by an unhinged stalker or an enemy with a grudge.

I can't say for sure what dollar amount I would pull out of thin air on a problem like that, but I'd want the cost to be high enough to make a hotel chain as big as Marriott take it seriously and make changes.

You realize that the parent corporation wasn't involved in this suit? The Marriott franchisee who ran this particular hotel property is who was sued.

I doubt anyone would have given it a second thought that a hotel house phone displayed the room number "caller ID" when ringing a particular room until this criminal used it for nefarious reasons.

 

[hawkifann]

You realize that the parent corporation wasn't involved in this suit? The Marriott franchisee who ran this particular hotel property is who was sued.

I doubt anyone would have given it a second thought that a hotel house phone displayed the room number "caller ID" when ringing a particular room until this criminal used it for nefarious reasons.

I work for a big company and I've worked for other big companies in the past. When it all hits the fan, it's not the local franchisee who has their name in the headlines, it's the parent company that takes the reputation hit. That's how the world works.

 

[JRHawk2003]

Oh, I get it, you fundamentally don't understand the concept of punitive damages. You know, the ones in which she said she was damaged.

I know you like to decide what is and isn't in the world (seemingly against women), such as what IS professional dress, or what IS damage to profession, but the jury decided differently than you. That doesn't make them right, it just shows that people who actually sat through the trial disagree with you, someone who thinks she shouldn't recover ... because of what she wore one day to work.

I would say her well compensated counsel paid off for her more than the franchisee's. You have my argument wrong and seem to have some sort of vain need to define my argument in the terms you wish they would be other than what they are. I am going to say it again...Just to be real clear;

I find her outrage disingenuous because she put herself on display in a non-professional manner on previous occasions, my assertion that she was un-professional was stated by a female reporter in Wisconsin as an example. I didn't just pull it out of my arse. Nothing the court system does surprises me.

 

[theIowaHawk]

There are a couple things going on here. Obviously, she was not irreparably harmed in her career, as she's still working many prominent games for Fox. That said, both the person who shot the video and the hotel were in the wrong. The videographer, was obviously in the wrong, as it's illegal to do what he did and he served jail time for it. That's simple.

For the hotel, there's nothing criminal, but what played out was an egregious violation of privacy. Next time a star athlete, famous actor/actress or musician comes to town, try going to their hotel and just asking for their room number or try using a phone to get their room number. Good luck. It's wrong and annoying that this idiot shot a nude video of EA, but unless the person working the desk was actually in on it (in which case he should also go to jail), he and the hotel certainly made it potentially easy for a prominent person to get assaulted/kidnapped/killed by an unhinged stalker or an enemy with a grudge.

I can't say for sure what dollar amount I would pull out of thin air on a problem like that, but I'd want the cost to be high enough to make a hotel chain as big as Marriott take it seriously and make changes.

I'm not sure why you think she needed to be "irreparably harmed" in her career, but basically agree with the rest of it. The financial judgment may have been (you'd have to ask the jury) awarded specifically based on what they believed would "turn the heads" of the hotel group, make them stand up and listen and make sure this doesn't happen.

Trad points out that it wasn't "big" Marriott, but I'm not sure why that matters, does that mean they aren't paying attention?

 

[The Tradition]

I work for a big company and I've worked for other big companies in the past. When it all hits the fan, it's not the local franchisee who has their name in the headlines, it's the parent company that takes the reputation hit. That's how the world works.

I doubt the bad pub will affect Marriott much. The stock price is up more than 300 percent since 2008 when this actually happened.

 

[JRHawk2003]

I doubt the bad pub will affect Marriott much. The stock price is up more than 300 percent since 2008 when this actually happened.

Plus Marriott owns chains under different names and people are not even aware. I doubt many people really care. I want to know who was hitting on Michelle Tafoya in a hotel bar. Yikes.

 

[theIowaHawk]

I would say her well compensated counsel paid off for her more than the franchisee's. You have my argument wrong and seem to have some sort of vain need to define my argument in the terms you wish they would be other than what they are. I am going to say it again...Just to be real clear;

I find her outrage disingenuous because she put herself on display in a non-professional manner on previous occasions, my assertion that she was un-professional was stated by a female reporter in Wisconsin as an example. I didn't just pull it out of my arse. Nothing the court system does surprises me.

Yes, we get it, and I will use your words:

You find her "outrage [at being surreptitiously filmed naked while in her hotel room, after the stalker learned the room number from the hotel and received the room next door] disingenuous" because "because she put herself on display in a non-professional manner on previous occasions."

You keep saying that isn't slut-shaming, or isn't saying she "asked for it", but yes, yes it is. You think she is "disingenuous", or not sincere, or dishonest. You think she is lying about the harm it did and how upset she was.

And you think that ... because of how she dressed on an entirely different and irrelevant time and location. You said her "unprofessional dress" means she shouldn't have won her lawsuit. I already posted the specific post where you said that. You can obviously call it what you want, but a spade is a f****** shovel.

 

[theIowaHawk]

I doubt anyone would have given it a second thought that a hotel house phone displayed the room number "caller ID" when ringing a particular room until this criminal used it for nefarious reasons.

And I doubt anyone gave a second thought to dumping turpentine out back in the neighborhood pond until some criminal used it for nefarious reasons.

That is one of the points of the lawsuit and the verdict.

 

[hawkifann]

I doubt the bad pub will affect Marriott much. The stock price is up more than 300 percent since 2008 when this actually happened.

Likely because they haven't had a string of these....which likely means that they made changes after it happened. This, of course, doesn't change the negligence in the first place.

My job is wrapped around protecting information. When "stupid user tricks" result in taking advantage of holes we didn't see or didn't have the technical ability to close, we have to deal with the fallout. As a company, we can't just shrug and point to the employee and blame them, we can face fines, lawsuits and various audit/reg findings that we have to deal with. It's no different for Marriott. I'm quite confident that some groups within the corporate offices took very clear notice of this and made changes straight away.

 

[hawkifann]

I'm not sure why you think she needed to be "irreparably harmed" in her career, but basically agree with the rest of it. The financial judgment may have been (you'd have to ask the jury) awarded specifically based on what they believed would "turn the heads" of the hotel group, make them stand up and listen and make sure this doesn't happen.

Trad points out that it wasn't "big" Marriott, but I'm not sure why that matters, does that mean they aren't paying attention?

I never said she had to be irreparably harmed. I was making the point that she didn't have to be because there are other forces in play here.

 

[The Tradition]

If a reasonable person would not have seen this potential for harm to occur on the property, how can you find it to be negligent?

 

[hawkifann]

If a reasonable person would not have seen this potential for harm to occur on the property, how can you find it to be negligent?

A jury of presumably reasonable people did find that there was negligence.

Something slipping through the cracks/going unnoticed doesn't mean that someone couldn't have seen potential for harm. Even before this case, if I'd have been in a hotel and connecting with another room showed me the room number on the phone's display screen, that's the first thing I'd have thought about.

 

[JRHawk2003]

Yes, we get it, and I will use your words:

You find her "outrage [at being surreptitiously filmed naked while in her hotel room, after the stalker learned the room number from the hotel and received the room next door] disingenuous" because "because she put herself on display in a non-professional manner on previous occasions."

You keep saying that isn't slut-shaming, or isn't saying she "asked for it", but yes, yes it is. You think she is "disingenuous", or not sincere, or dishonest. You think she is lying about the harm it did and how upset she was.

And you think that ... because of how she dressed on an entirely different and irrelevant time and location. You said her "unprofessional dress" means she shouldn't have won her lawsuit. I already posted the specific post where you said that. You can obviously call it what you want, but a spade is a f****** shovel.

No, I said her unprofessional dress makes her disingenuous. Lawsuits are arbitrary since juries are just groups of imperfect people. I don't really think her win means anything other than hotels removing peep holes.

 

[The Tradition]

No, I said her unprofessional dress makes her disingenuous. Lawsuits are arbitrary since juries are just groups of imperfect people. I don't really think her win means anything other than hotels removing peep holes.

New hotels have peep holes with brass peep blockers that can be flipped down from inside the door.

 

[theIowaHawk]

A jury of presumably reasonable people did find that there was negligence.

Something slipping through the cracks/going unnoticed doesn't mean that someone couldn't have seen potential for harm. Even before this case, if I'd have been in a hotel and connecting with another room showed me the room number on the phone's display screen, that's the first thing I'd have thought about.

And that's ignoring that they gave him the room right next to hers, apparently "no questions asked". Jury seems to have taken issue with that.

 

[hawkifann]

And that's ignoring that they gave him the room right next to hers, apparently "no questions asked". Jury seems to have taken issue with that.

Depending on how exactly he asked, I actually have a little less problem with that. Now, if he asked for "the room next to EA", then I have a big problem.....but if he's a guy with plenty of Marriott stays who gives some BS story over having liked that room in the past or whatever, that's plausible cover and someone with a customer service focus might grant that wish. I'm much more concerned over getting EA's room number and how he found out that the room next to hers was unoccupied.

 

[The Tradition]

And that's ignoring that they gave him the room right next to hers, apparently "no questions asked". Jury seems to have taken issue with that.

I have an app on my phone that lets me pick the room I want. No speaking to any human required.

http://hhonors3.hilton.com/en/hhonors-mobile-app/index2.html

 

[hawkifann]

I have an app on my phone that lets me pick the room I want. No speaking to any human required.

http://hhonors3.hilton.com/en/hhonors-mobile-app/index2.html

This is why, by far, the biggest deal is him finding out what room EA was in. That's really the crux of this case.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

Oh, I get it, you fundamentally don't understand the concept of punitive damages. You know, the ones in which she said she was damaged.

I know you like to decide what is and isn't in the world (seemingly against women), such as what IS professional dress, or what IS damage to profession, but the jury decided differently than you. That doesn't make them right, it just shows that people who actually sat through the trial disagree with you, someone who thinks she shouldn't recover ... because of what she wore one day to work.

Quit being such a pussy.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Quit being such a pussy.