Also, "ESPN Lawyers Try To Smoke Out Creepy Amateur Peephole Videographer (Update)."
Seriously, the video is here ...
I'm scouring around for more reactions and will update!
Remember, I'm testing Robert Stacy McCain's Hot Babes Google Bomb theory.
**********
UPDATE: Smitty, in the comments, calls this an award-winning Rule 5 entry (and links in an update at today's "Rule 5 Sunday").
Also, Dan Riehl raises questions of propriety:
Hell, I didn't even know who Erin Andrews is, not having watched ESPN in a while ... And assuming this is legit, you are perpetuating a crime by linking the video - which I won't do.
Yes, but did Dan watch the clip?!!
Well, here's more on that:
Like most celebrity nude pics or videos, I was sure this was going to be some hoax or girl that vaguely resembled Ms. Andrews.But as I watched the video play (you’re damn right I watched it. I’m not made of stone) ...
Also, check Rita Watson at the Los Angeles Examiner, "Erin Andrews Peephole: Our Obsession With Thin and Beautiful":
In the world of love, dating, and marriage – a few men have weighed in on stories regarding women and weight.**********
It seems that our obsession with thin women has taken such a hold these days, that the beautiful Erin Andrews, sports reporter for ESPN was the victim of a peeping Tom incident in the privacy of her hotel room.
The video went viral and fortunately not just her attorneys but sportscasters are denouncing her invasion of privacy.
This is just an example of what happens in a society in which we place so much value on external beauty.
UPDATE II: Don Surber responds by email, and writes a post on it, "Email of the Day":
OK.And from the comments, Cassandra at Villainous Company:
I give up.
Who is Erin Andrews and why should I care/be surprised that she has a video of her naked?
Doesn’t every female celeb under 30?Don Surber
Poca WV
If someone took a video of your wife or daughter in the nude through a keyhole, would you post the video?
If not, why post it here?
Couple of things: No, I wouldn't. But my wife is not a 31 year-old ESPN reporter. This is news. Besides, I didn't "post" it. I'm linking to those who did, and they'll be getting lawsuits. (See, "Lawyer Vows Charges in Erin Andrews Peephole Video Case.")
Plus, some folks aren't too worried about the ethical angle:
This peeping tom guy is pretty cool.And see, "Erin Andrews Nude Peephole Video hits BitTorrent, RapidShare and TheVideoBay":Well done.
It seems there will be no stopping the propagation of this video now, despite the threat of legal action by Andrews. ThePirateBay, on which the torrent file is linked, was acquired recently, in part due to legal issues.Interesting ...
And I'm still waiting for a Robert Stacy McCain response on this ...
**********
UPDATE III: From Associated Content, "Erin Andrews Peephole Video: What You're Not Seeing":
Erin Andrews may now be the most sought after woman in sports -- and all because of an elusive peephole video that has been uploaded to the internet. The Erin Andrews peephole video has gone viral -- or at least articles and ads purporting to have the Erin Andrews peephole video have gone viral -- and the internet has been ablaze for the past couple days with traffic either accessing or attempting to access the comely sports announcer's naked form via a video filmed without her knowledge. For her part, she has issued a legal statement through her lawyers that once the perpetrator or perpetrators are found, they will be prosecuted.
More at the link.And rightly so...
Erin Andrews, for those who still have no idea who she is, works for ESPN as a sports reporter. Apart from being extremely attractive and popular, she is very good at her job. And although the more cynical will say that Erin Andrews has made it as far as she has primarily because of her looks, it must be noted that, if true, it isn't because she has calculatingly used her beauty to become a popular ESPN sports reporter. You won't find half a dozen swimsuit calendars with Erin Andrews posed provocatively atop the months of the year. And you won't find any nude photos or Playboy spreads (although she has been voted Playboy's Sexiest Sports Announcer).
And no sex tape. There is no Erin Andrews sex tape.
But you can find her in hundreds of photos on the web. For some, she wears far too many clothes, but clothed she is. And her photos (and videos) rarely show her in anything overly provocative, although she doesn't steer away from the forming fitting pair of slacks or an accentuating sweater. (There is nothing wrong with dressing for success or simply looking presentable. Male sports announcers are not seen running the sidelines in sweats or a ragged t-shirt and jeans.)
Still, Erin Andrews seems to have taken great pains over the years to be taken as a serious sports reporter, announcer, and journalist.
But there is an Erin Andrews peephole video and if people were sick of seeing everything Erin Andrews on the internet, they had seen nothing compared to the traffic onslaught of the search for the peephole video. Which will in turn lead to Erin Andrews popularity and fame skyrocketing. It is known as the "Paris Hilton Law," or something to that effect. Naked photos, videos, or sex tapes tend to do that for an attractive woman's career these days, but those images are usually taken with their consent. They may have not been placed on the internet by their consent (and usually are not), but the photos et. al. of them in their various degrees of nakedness were taken with their knowledge and consent.
Erin Andrews peephole video was not.
And internet users apparently want to see it because it has remained one of the most searched topics on the internet for the past several days. With the various websites being tracked down and shut down by Erin Andrews' lawyers and threats of lawsuits, the peephole video has also become something of a hide-and-seek game. Users have been treated with search terms like "Erin Andrews peephole video," "Erin Andrews peephole video google cache," and "Erin Andrews peephole video rapidshare." No doubt there have been hundreds of articles and blogs written about the elusiveness of the video (this writer has read about a dozen simply researching this article), many of them complaining about the unavailability of the peephole video once they arrive, or that there is some form of locking quiz to complete in order to access the video, or that the link was simply a scam to get the user to access the target website with no intention of showing the Erin Andrews peephole video.
And so it goes...
Related: It turns out that Sports Illustrated cover model Marisa Miller eschews Ms. Andrews' professional restraint. See, "Marisa Miller: Nude, Bathing in GQ." Also, "ESPY Fashion Face-Off: Marisa Miller vs. Erin Andrews."
Also, more on the ethical angle: Stogie from Saber Point responds, in the comments:
Cassandra's right. This was a crime and no one should take advantage of it by "Google-bombing" the crime.My response? Again, this is news, obviously.
Stacy McCain is a great guy, but all of you McCainiacs ought to remove your lips from around his ass sometime.
As for the McCainiacs, well, if folks want to draw lines, fine. I have no problems reporting on a hot news story of a hot ESPN news reporter who's the victim of a crime, with ... links. Nope, doesn't bother me at all ...
As for Robert Stacy McCain and the McCainiacs? Well, there are limits, and here's a big, bright line: With all due respect, I wouldn't photograph my neighbor in a bikini by the pool, getting out of the shower topless, or shaving her legs in the bathroom. I am linking to the post though, for the purposes of argument. The difference between the Erin Andrew link and those links right here is that the latter have absolutely zero news values. Still, no doubt Cassandra or someone else will say I'm perpetuating the invasion. That's fine, if you think so, don't click the links. Again, to repeat: DON'T CLICK THE LINKS!!
**********
FINAL UPDATE: The Other McCain has spoken, "Almost as Creepy as Joe Biden":
I have no interest in watching the video and just now saw Dr. Douglas's post.
Criminal voyeurism isn't sexy. Nevertheless, crime is news, and the fact that so many people felt the need to comment on it just goes to show why the most famous headline in history was the New York Post's "HEADLESS BODY IN TOPLESS BAR." Or, as Hunter S. Thompson observed in Hell's Angels, "Every editor loves a good rape."
Maybe this is another example of how New Media helps demystify what Old Media has been doing for years. Dr. Douglas shows you the strings in the puppet show - "Look, I'm shamefully exploiting prurient interest!" - and you say, "That's disgusting!"
15 comments:
Updated Rule 5, nominating you for CA governor on the strength of this post.
If someone took a video of your wife or daughter in the nude through a keyhole, would you post the video?
If not, why post it here?
I want to know what kind of hotel has a quarter-inch skeleton keyhole anymore? Usually modern hotels have keyless entry-card systems.
Unless someone has managed to break out the peephole's glass, in which we have a case of breaking and entering on top of whatever other charges are available. Felony, much?
In any event, this is gonna get the perp in a hell of a lot of trouble. As it should. A punch in the mouth might be a good start.
(I've made a detailed studied analysis of that vid, BTW, all in the interest of 'just finding the facts, ma'am'. . . )
Cassandra's right. This was a crime and no one should take advantage of it by "Google-bombing" the crime.
Stacy McCain is a great guy, but all of you McCainiacs ought to remove your lips from around his ass sometime.
Prof. Douglas keeps saying this video has news value, but he doesn't say what the news is--what's the news here? It seems to be about a woman who many people don't know, a minor celebrity, not a major figure. (If this were, say, Angela Merkel caught up in some sort of sex-video, that might be news--as it was when there was video of Berlusconi with some young women.)
But I think the prof. is right that we should draw a distinction between posting a video and linking to it (just as we would make a distinction between posting a video of a naked woman and video-taping a naked woman--one may be bad, but the other is criminal). But at the end of the day, this doesn't seem like news to me--it seems like an attempt to get more hits. Isn't that what the whole Rule #5 thing is about? Getting attention? So why pretend this is news?
Thanks. I was wondering why the traffic up tick.
I gotta say.... nope. You are a creep for even mentioning, but especially linking this.
Sorry, I'm a total free speech nut, so I don't think you should have any consequences for what you have done. But it is still a despicable thing. Full stop.
The peephole guy should go to jail. And people who posted his "product" should face AT LEAST civil penalties. That there should be anything other than total societal intolerance for an act like this is a true reflection of the crapitude our society as a whole has sunk to.
Even if she were a skank like Madonna or Paris Hilton, there should be nothing but direct prosecution for this dirtball. You only make this post worse by goin out of your way to discuss how much Erin Andrews deserves this less, by several orders of magnitude. That said, I go back to the fact that even if a "more deserving" woman were at issue, it still sucks. Even a whore can be raped.
Shame on you. And I gotta say, you deserve no Rule 5 for this.
WRT the Bob's Bar and Grill link, I had demurred from linking that on a Rule 5 post, for reasons cited by Cassandra.
IMO, Erin Andrews should be appreciated on her merits as a sports reporter. I never followed the link to the peeping tom video, I linked you as what I hope is a clear swipe at your title as such.
There is a fine line between appreciating beauty in a positive way via Rule 5. It's fun to belie the argument that conservatives are humorless and prudish.
Hurt feelings, jealousy, angst, and subpoenas are a hint that you're doing it ronngg.
The EA video(s) are easy to find. But people, don't waste your time on it, its a set up.
Don't blame Donald for covering a nude...excuse the pun.
At first my male base side had me clicking that link before I even thought about it. When it didn’t activate, I had a chance to think about all this for a while. Now I am glad I didn’t see it. I think I would start feeling as if I had invaded her privacy. Then I would feel bad.
But, otherwise, in general, geez, lighten up. It isn’t sex video. It is just a short video of a beautiful blonde. Let the guys have a little naughty fun. True, you and I wouldn’t secretly arrange to shoot something like that, besides being despicable, it would kick in the conscience, and the “isn’t this against the law-thought.”
That said, the urge to watch it is a forgivable human, heterosexual male trait.
geez, lighten up. It isn’t sex video. It is just a short video of a beautiful blonde. Let the guys have a little naughty fun. True, you and I wouldn’t secretly arrange to shoot something like that, besides being despicable, it would kick in the conscience, and the “isn’t this against the law-thought.”
That said, the urge to watch it is a forgivable human, heterosexual male trait.
Urges, and acting on urges, are two different things. Let the guys have a little "naughty fun" looking at a woman who didn't agree to be photographed this way. Who cares if it's humiliating or painful for her? Thankfully, it didn't happen to you.
Donald seems to think the fact that it's "news" excuses exploiting an ugly crime against an innocent woman. Well, when one of our soldiers or Marines dies, that's "news". I know, because I've fielded phone calls from distraught families when the press camp out on their doorstep.
Does their misfortune give total strangers license to invade the privacy of the family? After all, curiosity is both forgiveable and understandable, isn't it?
That doesn't make it right. Adults have urges, and then they're supposed to have a sense of right and wrong. When someone dies, all we need to know is what happened. When a woman is involuntarily stripped naked before thousands of strangers that doesn't give us unlimited license to take advantage of her. What was done to this woman is wrong.
That should not require an explanation. That people have become so jaded that they don't think twice about treating a woman who didn't ask for this kind of treatment as though she has no right to respect or privacy speaks volumes. Sorry, but there it is.
Somehow, I doubt that if this were your wife or daughter, you'd accept "it's forgiveable and understandable" if you caught a bunch of your co-workers gawking at her and yukking it up. News had nothing to do with why this was posted - a mere notice of the news story would have given you all the information you needed.
"Even if she were a skank like Madonna or Paris Hilton, there should be nothing but direct prosecution for this dirtball. You only make this post worse by goin out of your way to discuss how much Erin Andrews deserves this less, by several orders of magnitude. That said, I go back to the fact that even if a "more deserving" woman were at issue, it still sucks. Even a whore can be raped.
Shame on you. And I gotta say, you deserve no Rule 5 for this."
Yeah. You're off my blogroll; this just creeps me out. You're capitalizing on a young woman being the victim of a crime. And it's just low.
"Look, I'm shamefully exploiting prurient interest!" - and you say, "That's disgusting!"
Yep. It is.
Ugggh.
I think one practical thing we've learned from this is; to carry a roll of masking tape with on motel - hotel visits (easily removed, masking tape; duct tape, not so much).
If there is some device that's capable of this sort of video peephole peeking, then no peephole should be left uncovered.
One reason why I quit blogging - dumbasses pulling stunts like this (among innumerable insipid stunts) for the sake of hits. Hits from other dumbasses, at that.
How's that add value to your life or anyone else's on earth, loser?
How does this make you any different from the peeping tom who took the video, hmm? Really.
Post a Comment