I will answer for you.

 

I want all of you men to be completely honest. Think about some real hot woman that you see in your normal travels. Maybe she works at the Mall, maybe she is your neighbor, maybe she is a care provider, maybe at the gym, or maybe she is on TV. Now imagine by some accident (stroke of luck) you get to see her naked. Again, it was an accident.

 

Now ask yourself this, would you like to see more or less of this hot woman in the future?

 

The answer is more for almost everyone of you. And for those of you it is less, I think you are weird.

 

:lol2:

I will answer for you.

 

I want all of you men to be completely honest. Think about some real hot woman that you see in your normal travels. Maybe she works at the Mall, maybe she is your neighbor, maybe she is a care provider, maybe at the gym, or maybe she is on TV. Now imagine by some accident (stroke of luck) you get to see her naked. Again, it was an accident.

 

Now ask yourself this, would you like to see more or less of this hot woman in the future?

 

The answer is more for almost everyone of you. And for those of you it is less, I think you are weird.

 

Let's stick with Andrews, if you saw her naked by accident would you be less likely to watch a sporting event she was covering?

 

Irrelevant. The issue at trial was the invasion of privacy & exploitation of Andrews as a person, not whether the naked video increased her popularity. I'm sure EA has had plenty of opportunities to pose nude for a magazine but has declined to do so. That's her prerogative.

 

For what it's worth, a stalker who deliberately sought her out and spied on her while changing then made the video publicly available is completely different than a nip slip (i.e. Janet Jackson) or walking into a room & seeing someone naked while changing clothes. Surely you can see the difference.

Let's stick with Andrews, if you saw her naked by accident would you be less likely to watch a sporting event she was covering?

 

The video doesn't show all that much (according to a buddy)

Irrelevant. The issue at trial was the invasion of privacy & exploitation of Andrews as a person, not whether the naked video increased her popularity. I'm sure EA has had plenty of opportunities to pose nude for a magazine but has declined to do so. That's her prerogative.

 

For what it's worth, a stalker who deliberately sought her out and spied on her while changing then made the video publicly available is completely different than a nip slip (i.e. Janet Jackson) or walking into a room & seeing someone naked while changing clothes. Surely you can see the difference.

 

I am responding to Clyde about whether it hurts or helps her career. It helps.

 

I understand the legal issues are different but since $$$ is what Andrews is asking for she is definitely getting her cake and eating it too when it comes to money.

I am responding to Clyde about whether it hurts or helps her career. It helps.

 

I understand the legal issues are different but since $$$ is what Andrews is asking for she is definitely getting her cake and eating it too when it comes to money.

 

So how does any attractive quasi-celebrity that the general public wouldn't mind seeing naked maintain his/her right to privacy?

So how does any attractive quasi-celebrity that the general public wouldn't mind seeing naked maintain his/her right to privacy?

 

By doing exactly what she has done, go after the deep pockets that share some responsibility.

 

I do think Andrews is deserving of something, I said about a million sounds right, but I certainly don't think 55 million is right, especially when wrongful death judgements are only a small fraction of that percentage.

 

How much would an attractive quasi-celebrity guy get in the same situation? Certainly not 55 million. Unless he was gay, but certainly not in Tennessee (or Kentucky) for that matter but maybe in a more progressive state.

The video doesn't show all that much (according to a buddy)

 

Yeah, right !

I do think Andrews is deserving of something, I said about a million sounds right, but I certainly don't think 55 million is right, especially when wrongful death judgements are only a small fraction of that percentage.

 

I would have to know more before that comparison holds up. Is the number cited for wrongful death suits the initial award from the jury or the final outcome from either settlement or appellate decision? Does it exclude settlements?

 

Secondly, how much of a 1:1 comparison is it to this sort of case? A lawyer will need to answer, but can someone/business be found something like 10% negligent in a wrongful death case (where 90% of the fault is with the deceased)? Compared to this case, the hotel was found 49% responsible, the perpetrator 51%, and Andrews 0%. On top of that, how many wrongful death cases were adjudicated in TN that go into the average? Are we talking five cases or are we talking hundreds?

 

Lastly, it seems to me that part of the award is also meant to punish those at fault. Awarding Andrews $500,000 from the hotel group might have hardly put a dent in their wallet (and probably wouldn't have been worth the cost of counsel or hassle on her part to go through with it), meaning they'd get out of this with minimal repercussions. Shouldn't part of the award calculation factor in accountability?

I read all that. About a million sounds right.

 

Yeah, that'll teach them.

Men marginalizing the amount of damage done to a woman. It's happened throughout human history and continues today. How do you know that $55 mil is too much? Joe and Mika said this morning that she deserved what she got and probably more. Why are they wrong ?

I'm actually going to commit original sin and agree with someone I never agree with.

 

I'm perfectly fine with the decision and the award. As someone else said she'll never see what the stalker owes her and the award needs to be punitive to the hotel chain. If it isn't there's no deterrence.

 

To further add to context of this post I have railed against silly jury awards in the past.

I'm actually going to commit original sin and agree with someone I never agree with.

I'm perfectly fine with the decision and the award. As someone else said she'll never see what the stalker owes her and the award needs to be punitive to the hotel chain. If it isn't there's no deterrence.

 

To further add to context of this post I have railed against silly jury awards in the past.

 

Even the most unlikely of occurrences happen given enough passage of time.

In other words you don't think that you and your buddy each deserve millions?

No, but my buddy's situation resulted in someone losing their job and that hotel /casino losing a very valuable customer.

Men marginalizing the amount of damage done to a woman. It's happened throughout human history and continues today. How do you know that $55 mil is too much? Joe and Mika said this morning that she deserved what she got and probably more. Why are they wrong ?

 

Because any number thrown out is arbitrary.

Men marginalizing the amount of damage done to a woman. It's happened throughout human history and continues today. How do you know that $55 mil is too much? Joe and Mika said this morning that she deserved what she got and probably more. Why are they wrong ?

 

So a man saying Andrews' case isn't worth 10 to 20 times the average wrongful death payout is a man marginalizing a woman. Thanks for the heads up.

 

And All Tell, wow dude...