She had her personal privacy violated. Everyone knows the video was her. It doesn't matter one iota if it was blurry or not. Her reputation and piece of mind were obliterated. Consider the Greg Haidl case. A female was drugged and gang-raped....the video was a little blurry but her lack of consent was clear. Still, she was branded as a ho, a slut, a bitch because she went to a private home late at night knowing there were 3 boys there. Seriously....consider if this was your wife or daughter and some peeping tom filmed them through the windows of your home and then posted it on youtube. You good with that?
Where are you getting rape from? No one was raped. But since you wanna go there would you rather your rapist on the street and cash settlement or the fucker behind bars? Is money gonna change what happened? How is a peeping tom worth 75 million? That's nuts. Especially for a woman prancing around on film in a bathing suit where you can see more than on that stupid video.
Of course not but it's apples to oranges. Big reach from drug induced gang rape to some perv taking a grainy video through a peep hole. Come on vball, you're better than this.
You think $1 million to $5 million will hurt a company like Marriott? They keep that in the petty cash drawer. Punitive damages are meant to inflict fiscal pain to a point the business will ensure the practice for which they are being sued never occurs again.
Certainly the Marriot Corporation has some liability but $75 million worth - I don't think so. If they were following standard industry hiring and training practices and the employees were duped by a person who was familiar enough with the system to game the employees via "social engineering" some of the blame has to fall on the employees- who don't have anywhere near $75 million to be sued for. Was Erin Andrews privacy violated? Of course. It has to be creepy to be the victim of such a creep. But EA was not raped. She was not physically or sexually assaulted. She was not mentally and/or emotionally shattered to the point where she was unable to quickly recover and carry on not only with her life but to function in a competent and professional manner in her job. Give her $2 mil and keep the guy in prison for a long time.
That's not the point of what I said. If there were ever to be any monetary judgement it should be the Perp who is most liable but since he is in jail and was pretty broke before he did it he has no assets to sue for. Marriot does bear some culpability but the balance of guilt tips heavily on the creep's side of the scale.
