What are the legal consequences of the Erin Andrews’ invasion of privacy case? Is this case relevant to the recent allegations that some Hilton hotel rooms have hidden cameras that videotape unsuspecting guest? (See https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/05/us/hilton-worldwide-hotel-hidden-camera-lawsuit/index.html) Minimum 250 words.
Legal consequences of the Erin Andrews’ invasion of privacy case
According to the Erin Andrews invasion of the privacy case, it has been found that Michael David Barette was charged with the allegation of performing illegal videotaping of Ms. Erin Andrew in the hotel where she is staying at the time of conducting her duty. Furthermore, it has been found that without the consent of her Michael David has done all the illegal capturing of video of her while she was changing her dress and also posted the video on the online pornography websites for claiming money from her. Therefore this activity has cause embarrassment and emotional disturbances to her (Brady, 2017). The legal consequences of this privacy invasion case are that she charged lawsuit about the hotel so as to hold accountable to those members who have invaded her personal safety as well as privacy and made her prone of facing the risks. Apart from this she has also charged lawsuit to the Michael David in context to the violation and performed sex crime for the activities he has done without the knowledge of her. In addition, the person would also be charged under the cybercrime for spreading the video on the internet as it is considered as an illegal one.
Relevancy of the case with the recent case of Hilton hotel
Yes, the case of Erin Andrew is completely relevant to the current allegations made by the Chicago women named as Jane Doe to the Hilton hotel regarding the illegal videotaping of her. In this case, the Chicago woman has charged a lawsuit of $100 million regarding the matter that she has been secretly videotaped by the staffs of the hotel without her knowledge and consent. This illegal activity has taken place when Jane Doe is taking shower in the washroom and thereafter the video has been posted to all the possible pornographic websites as the person who performs this illegal activity tries to blackmail her. She complained to the police about the matter that the individual is blackmailing and charging a sum of $2000 dollar as well as $1000 per month (Citron & Franks, 2014). The woman filed the lawsuit against the owner of the Hilton and the Albany hotel regarding invading her privacy and safety measures while she is staying on the hotel. Therefore it is always an illegal act to perform such heinous crime against the women without her knowledge and consent and then blackmailing her for money. Hotel authorities must take necessary actions to maintain the welfare and safety of the guests in a proper way.
Legal consequences of Erin Andrews’ invasion of privacy case
Privacy, crime, and safety of women are intricately linked in any legal system. An essential part of the security of citizens is the safety of their privacy and personal information. If any legal system does not protect the privacy â€” both of body and information â€” of its people, there will always be insecurity in such an order. With the recent debates on women’s safety, several crucial privacy and security issues have been raised, such as the criminalization of voyeurism and stalking, which is a massive boost for the privacy rights of citizens in India, and, hopefully, the government will continue the trend of considering the privacy issues along when addressing security concerns for the state.
Here, in the case of Erin Andrews’ invasion of privacy, the above mentioned legal consequences are inevitable. Andrews alleges that the hotels gave her stalker, Michael David Barrett, her room number and also allowed him to check into connecting hotel rooms. Barrett was convicted of felony stalking last year and is serving a two-and-a-half year sentence in prison. Andrews testified at his sentencing and requested the maximum sentence, saying that Barrett’s actions had a catastrophic effect on Andrews and her family. Barrett admitted to modifying peepholes in hotel suites to “allow him to see into Andrew’s room and videotape her nude.” He then uploaded the video to the internet. Attorney Marshall Grossman represented Andrews during Barrett’s criminal stalking trial stated, “Erin filed the lawsuit to send a message to hotel chains that they need to exercise greater care in protecting their guests. “She was seriously harmed by what happened there,” TMZ reports.
Yes, this case is relevant to the allegations that Hilton hotel rooms have hidden cameras that videotaped while Erin Andrew was naked. Hotels and hotel guests can both learn from the case. Hotels would be wise to be protective of hotel guests information, unusually high profile guests. They should never provide room numbers or allow guests to have rooms next to specific people unless the other party is aware of the request. Hotel guests should be careful with who they share their room location and ensure that the hotel does not share their information. As a simple fix, they might also want to block the door peepholes from the inside with a piece of tape. Although blocking the peephole cannot completely stop a determined stalker, it will make things more difficult for them.
Its a Discussion and two replies each of 150 words for above question
i need everything in separate documents as 1st document should be discussion of 250words. , 2nd document should be reply 1 and 3rd document should be reply 2.make sure no turnitin and no plagiarism please dont copy it from any source write in your own words.
make sure you write everything in own words
Please dont copy from any source we have a turnitin.
And send me three documents in different folder.