Right to privacy? Stay home and don't get a job where your face is on TV. When you step foot in public life, it is no longer private.
I agree, she chose to be on television and in a sideline reporter with mostly male viewers, she had to know it was going to attract yahoos. I think what the dude did was wrong and he should he punished and the hotel should be fined but 75 million? Cmon mane.
Not true. It is considered a violation of your right to privacy to give out a guest's room number without their express permission. Let's say a physically abused spouse is camping out in a motel room and the abusive spouse gets their room number, goes to the room and kills the other. Is the hotel liable now? Of course they are. There are very solid reasons why they shouldn't and don't give out numbers. If you are staying at hotels that do give out numbers, you should change hotels. The only thing they should do is connect you by phone without giving the room number, leaving that choice up to you.
what bengal says holds merit. you cant expect 10 dollar an hr employees to hold the security of fort knox. if i plant a hidden camera in a hotel upon my departure then film EA (by the luck of the draw she uses that room) are they liable? I hope not. is it practical to do room sweeps for electronics upon each change of occupancy? now we must decide is it practical that a hotel can have 100% security with occupants coming and going hundreds of people every hour requesting information of all sorts. no. theres reasonable security and unreasonable. the former will win out here. she will get a couple mill hush money and go on her distraught way. sniff.
Again, not true. Celebrities (and that term very loosely describes EA here) do not waive their general rights to privacy simply because they choose a public job. Their ability to claim invasion is more difficult but they still have obvious protections. "One who intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the solitude or seclusion of another or his private affairs or concerns, is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. Comments: a. The form of invasion of privacy covered by this Section does not depend upon any publicity given to the person whose interest is invaded or to his affairs. It consists solely of an intentional interference with his interest in solitude or seclusion, either as to his person or as to his private affairs or concerns, of a kind that would be highly offensive to a reasonable man. b. The invasion may be by physical intrusion into a place in which the plaintiff has secluded himself, as when the defendant forces his way into the plaintiff's room in a hotel or insists over the plaintiff's objection in entering his home. It may also be by the use of the defendant's senses, with or without mechanical aids, to oversee or overhear the plaintiff's private affairs, as by looking into his upstairs windows with binoculars or tapping his telephone wires. It may be by some other form of investigation or examination into his private concerns, as by opening his private and personal mail, searching his safe or his wallet, examining his private bank account, or compelling him by a forged court order to permit an inspection of his personal documents. The intrusion itself makes the defendant subject to liability, even though there is no publication or other use of any kind of the photograph or information outlined. One who gives publicity to a matter concerning the private life of another is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if the matter publicized is of a kind that (a) would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and (b) is not of legitimate concern to the public. "Publicity," on the other hand, means that the matter is made public, by communicating it to the public at large, or to so many persons that the matter must be regarded as substantially certain to become one of public knowledge. The difference is not one of the means of communication, which may be oral, written or by any other means. It is one of a communication that reaches, or is sure to reach, the public. Thus it is not an invasion of the right of privacy, within the rule stated in this Section, to communicate a fact concerning the plaintiff's private life to a single person or even to a small group of persons. On the other hand, any publication in a newspaper or a magazine, even of small circulation, or in a handbill distributed to a large number of persons, or any broadcast over the radio, or statement made in an address to a large audience, is sufficient to give publicity within the meaning of the term as it is used in this Section. The distinction, in other words, is one between private and public communication. https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/privacy/Privacy_R2d_Torts_Sections.htm Everyone, no matter how famous, has a right to expect privacy in certain situations and settings. A home, a hotel, a private club...their private life is not anyone else's business. And certainly, EA did not want nor give permission for her naked photos to be published and then "clicked" 17 million times.
Neither Fort Knox security nor a Harvard degree is required to follow a few simple rules....."Do not give out guest room numbers" and don't discuss celebrity guests staying at the hotel."
yeah i know but in a practical sense it doesnt always work. who is this layla. im not liking her all that much just yet. you know all that energy could be useful.
