Erin Andrews Peephole Video: Naked Truth About Her Invaded Privacy

Erin Andrews, the ESPN sports blogger and reporter, is a beautiful woman and the object of attention for many, including one opportunist who decided to take a video of her in a hotel room through a peephole. To be sure, Erin Andrews' every move is scrutinized by both sports fans and admirers of feminine pulchritude on a daily basis. Of course, as soon as the news hit the internet that there was a "peephole" video of a naked Erin Andrews to be seen, search engines became strained with movement to find said peephole video. Apparently, just the idea of seeing Erin Andrews naked or in some form of undress, even through the confined parameters of a peephole, was enough for many. And the race was on for Erin Andrews and her lawyers to attempt to block the video wherever possible before it went viral. But viral it went...

Still, when Erin Andrews is not working for ESPN or is not out in the public (the paparazzi are everywhere), the 31-year-old, just like any other individual, has a reasonable expectation to personal privacy. A hotel room, a sort of home-away-from-home, is an area where the reporter could and should expect a fairly high degree of privacy, barring not pulling the shades or leaving the door to her hotel room open. Having oneself shot on video through the peephole of a door or wall goes beyond the pale of the normal parameters of observation. It would be something most would not consider or guard against, leaving one vulnerable to the determined voyeur.

Such was the case with Erin Andrews.

The Erin Andrews peephole video appeared on YouTube for awhile but was quickly blocked. Then it was available in the Google search engine cache (and most likely will have been blocked by the time this article sees print). But it was not at first known for certain that the naked blonde in the peephole video was actually Erin Andrews, igniting an internet debate over the identity of the video's naked target. Erin Andrews legal team moved swiftly, however, admitting that the images in the peephole video were Erin Andrews and promised legal action against anyone and everyone responsible for the making of the video and its dissemination online.

Erin Andrews' attorney, Marshall B. Grossman, of Bingham McCutchen LLP, was authorized to issue a public statement on her behalf: "While alone in the privacy of her hotel room, Erin Andrews was surreptitiously videotaped without her knowledge or consent. She was the victim of a crime and is taking action to protect herself and help ensure that others are not similarly violated in the future. Although the perpetrator or perpetrators of this criminal act have not yet been identified, when they are identified she intends to bring both civil and criminal charges against them and against anyone who has published the material. We request respect of Erin's privacy at this time, while she and her representatives are working with the authorities."

There is no doubt that Erin Andrews does not mind being the center of attention -- she does work in front of a camera. Her image can be found just about anywhere one cares to look on the internet. But the beautiful sportscaster is not known for her bikini layouts and revealing spreads. Unlike many other women in the field who have either assumed their positions by appearing naked or somewhat so or through hard work and sexy modeling, she is known for her professionalism and her body of work. Her beauty has simply been an attractive accessory.

But it would not matter if the peephole video were taken of Lisa Dergan, a Fox sportscaster who once posed naked for Playboy. What matters is that the condition of assumed and expected privacy was breached. There was no consent given for the naked images captured, therefore making the peephole video an illegally made product.

And although it can be argued that the viewing of a naked body, Erin Andrews or that of anyone else, might be in some way immoral, there is no doubt that the gathering of naked images without the consent of those whose images are being recorded is immoral. For we are all guaranteed at least a modicum of personal privacy in our lives, even public figures and famous celebrities. In that regard, Erin Andrews is no different than anyone else.

Respecting Erin Andrews' right to do as she wished in her home-away-from-home environment was something she reasonably expected to be accorded her. Watching the peephole video after learning that she did not consent or have knowledge of its existence before it became part of the internet is tantamount to also viewing Erin Andrews without her consent.

In short, viewing Erin Andrews peephole video now is voyeurism. She did not consent to the video being made nor its dissemination, therefore making the video part of the domain of her personal privacy. Viewing the peephole video now is an act of willful voyeurism and also an invasion of Erin Andrews privacy.

Not that that distinction will stop people from attempting to find and observe Erin Andrews naked.

******

Sources:

Google.com
PRNewswire.com
"Erin Andrews Peephole Video Prompts Warning," Hartley Engel, Associated Content