In 2008, a popular sports broadcaster, Erin Andrews, sued a Marriott hotel in Nashville over a nude video. A stalker managed to record Andrews through the peephole in the door. The video of a nude Andrews was posted online by Michael Barrett and viewed over 16 million times on popular porn sites. Barrett was sentenced to two-and-a-half years in prison upon admitting to stalking Andrews. Barrett told the press he managed to book the room next to Andrews and alter her peephole to film her.
It seems impossible to justify stalking and releasing a nude video of a woman without her consent, yet Barrett’s defense put together a sexist justification for his actions. Barrett’s defense argued that he did nothing wrong as Andrews’ career ‘improved’ as a result of the leaked video. Andrews responded to this claim with emotional testimony, “That ripped me apart," she told jurors in Davidson County Circuit Court. "I'm so angry. This could have been stopped.”
Andrews was completely humiliated and degraded when she was accused of benefiting from this nude video, "I don't want my dad or my boyfriend on the sideline," she said, because of constant heckling from fans shouting abuse like, "I've seen your this, I've seen your that." (Andrews) All of her trauma is, according to Barrett’s defense, nullified by the attention she has received. Claiming that the stalker is innocent because Andrews received attention from the incident is an appeal to a classic method of belittling women. This legal defense implies that the ultimate goal of women is attention. In watching this legal battle, we hear echos of the classic accusations female rape victims are berated with, "She just wants the money. She just wants the fame." ESPN, her network at the time, even demanded she publicly testifies that she did not leak the videos herself just for attention, "My bosses at ESPN told me, 'Before you go back on air for college football we need you to give a sit-down interview,'" she testified. "And that was the only way I was going to be allowed back."
What outrage would be expected from treating a male sportscaster this way? Why was Erin Andrews required to prove she had no motivations besides justice when a male victim would have no such burden? As a female sportscaster, Andrews faces immense discrimination within her field and now must reconcile an ongoing invasion of her privacy with accusations that her trauma was beneficial to her. Lawyers are telling Andrews that she faces no permanent damage. No consideration is given to the paranoia Andrews now deals with, according to her mother. According to the legal defense of Barrett, Andrews’ emotional trauma is not worth anything and does not indict her stalker in any crime.
Andrews won her legal battle and is awaiting the $55 million settlement the jury awarded her though she will not receive any of the awards until any appeals are resolved, and until Barrett's ownership of the video is determined. Despite her legal win, the hell she had to go through just to get an acknowledgment of wrongdoing was excessive. There was no reason for Andrews to be treated this way, and there is no way a man would have been treated the same. Women have always faced incredible discrimination in sports, and Andrews’ legal battle further proves the real issues endangering women today.
