State House Candidate in Virginia Condemns Leak of Sex Tapes
State House Candidate in Virginia Condemns Leak of Sex Tapes
Susanna Gibson, a Democrat running in one of seven tossup House seats in the closely divided legislature, denounced the “illegal invasion of my privacy.”
Susanna Gibson, a Democrat running in one of seven tossup House seats in the closely divided legislature, denounced the “illegal invasion of my privacy.”
A Democratic candidate in a crucial race for the Virginia General Assembly denounced reports on Monday that she and her husband had performed live on a sexually explicit streaming site.
Susanna Gibson, a nurse practitioner running in her first election cycle, said in a statement that the leaks about the online activity were “an illegal invasion of my privacy designed to humiliate me and my family.”
The Washington Post and The Associated Press reported on Monday that tapes of live-streamed sexual activity had been recorded from a pornographic site and archived on another site. The New York Times has not independently verified the content of the videos. The Democratic Party of Virginia did not respond to a request for comment.
Ms. Gibson, 40, who appears on her campaign website in hospital scrubs as well as at home with her husband and two young children, is running for the House of Delegates in one of only a handful of competitive races that will determine control of the General Assembly. Republicans hold a slim majority in the House, and Democrats narrowly control the State Senate, but both chambers are up for grabs in November.
You're viewing a single thread.
I find it funny that they used the term "invasion of privacy". She and her hubby went onto Chatterbate (I don't know the exact website name) and took tips from others to perform (according to my morning paper). That's a public display. And the fact that it didn't dawn on her that this could be out there is astonishing. I know if I ever put a picture on the internet, it's there FOREVER, and just because I'm a nobody doesn't mean someone out there archived it for later.
Edit: I changed leaked to invasion of privacy.
That something was predictable doesn’t excuse the people doing it.
That's true but still, you can't exactly claim "invasion of privacy" if you filmed and streamed it live to the Internet yourself.
People should not film it if they don't want others to see it. That's the golden rule of porn
You can claim malicious dissemination of a nude, which is a crime in VA: https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter8/section18.2-386.2/
where such person knows or has reason to know that he is not licensed or authorized to disseminate or sell such videographic or still image
Would this not be governed by the terms of the stream? If the content was created via a platform, the explicit definition of who has authorization to disseminate it certainly wouldn't rest solely with the creator.
When she streamed she legally declared her own information to be in the public domain.
Public information is not the same as public domain. They still hold the copyright on the streams, making reuploads illegal.
Also, aside from legality, it's simply morally wrong. They consented to be watched once live (or, if they enabled recordings, until they delete the VOD), not for it to be shared around on third party sites forever - regardless what Chaturbate put in their TOS to cover their asses.
Anyone who puts personal porn on the internet and who doesn't understand that EVERYTHING is digitally archived somewhere in the world, is a digitally illiterate moron. She performed sex for strangers on a website that does not even claim to be able to protect your material from theft. If she cared SOOOO much, she should have hidden her face, covered any tattoos, blocked people from her state, and removed all personally identifiable items from her bedroom.
Is it morally wrong? Sure, I guess. Is it completely fucking predictable? Also, yes. Should she just roll with it and stop making it out to be some kind of deep violation of her privacy? Also yes. There's a reason people flock to Trump, and it's because he's not an apologetic, spineless worm. Stop being so fucking weak, own it, and fight the hell back! There's nothing wrong with consensual sex, and it would play SOOOOOO much better if she just said, "Yeah my husband and I fuck. So what? Let's talk about healthcare!"
Jesus these mealy-mouthed, pearl-clutching Quaker wannabes are exhausting.
Gosh, you seem to care about this a lot...
Which is weird, because we seem to be in agreement about a major part:
Is it morally wrong? Sure, I guess.
Was it predictable that it would be recorded and redistributed? Sure. But that still doesn't make it right.
Oh my god! How dare someone comment on a discussion forum!!
You'll note that I never said anything was right or wrong, in any of my comments. In fact, I don't give a shit about right and wrong, and I've said so before. The videos are public information, she showed her face in them, she knew they could be leaked, they were leaked, and the more she hems and haws about a violation of privacy the more she looks like a spineless, clueless dumbass.
Oh my god! How dare someone comment on a discussion forum!!
Nah, it's more about the capslock, bold font and insults.
You’ll note that I never said anything was right or wrong, in any of my comments.
I mean, you said in your previous comment in this chain that you "guess" it's morally wrong. And beyond me quoting that I have not claimed you made a moral judgement on this situation.
But alas, I think that it is morally wrong whether or not it was foreseeable, and I do so regardless of what your moral judgement of the situation is (if any). Which, again, seems to really matter to you.
Is it a crime if the perpetrator did it from outside of VA?
Unless they did it from South Carolina specifically, yes
Why the exception?
Because SC is the only state without a revenge porn law.
No? So then she's an idiot and that's clearly not a suitable trait for a politician.
I can't decide if I wrote that a s joke or not, but I'm leaving it.
Can we just agree that if someone does something for fun or profit that isn't illegal or unethical they can just be free to go about their business? I'd share plenty of explicit content of my wife and I were it not for bullshit like this. (Also these days we're old and plain enough that no one would give a fuck, but anyway word would eventually get back to family and coworkers because too many people hate folks just enjoying themselves and sharing.)
Doxxing someone over sex is soliciting harm to them - inciting others to "punish" them for legal, consensual behavior. There is nothing wrong with what they did, but there is something wrong with trying to use it to hurt them, despite the fact that in a reasonable world no one would care beyond idle curiosity.
My comment was about how she feels this is an invasion of privacy not about the legality of the situation. She posted these on the internet with her own free will for money. She didn't have a problem posing for them.when it benefited her. Now, though, it's a problem.
Personally, I have no problem with her wanting to explore her sensuality. Good for her. I stop feeling sorry for her when she then declares it an invasion of privacy.
Did she do it for money? 🤔 I was under the impression that Chaturbate was a site for exhibitionists that wanted to sex chat, show themselves, have sex just for jollies.
According to the article from the nytimes, she raised money by asking for tokens in exchange for their suggestions to perform sex acts.
Edit: or was it wapo? I read it somewhere that she was accepting money in exchange for sex acts.
Yeah chaturbate is basically twitch for porn. People give petitions with donations.
Except archiving and disseminating in this way is a violation of Virginia law. https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter8/section18.2-386.2/
Should it though?
Yes
So: she was asking for it? Is that what you're saying?
Are you asking to be outed as a prude?
In my experience, the kinkiest people are the ones that are the most into consent. Like Commander Riker.. I don't get why valuing consent and being prude are opposite ends of the spectrum for you. Could you explain?
Then there was that one time a nurse refused to help Riker escape unless he slept with her. So he did. And was captured anyway
More like she consented to it.
To quote Raouldook
"That's true but still, you can't exactly claim "invasion of privacy" if you filmed and streamed it live to the Internet yourself.
People should not film it if they don't want others to see it. That's the golden rule of porn"
You're not wrong. It's not about victim blaming, but if you don't look both ways when you cross the road, knowing full well that the road is full of cars, and then you get hit by a car, you should have known better. This isn't a "don't wear revealing clothing and walk down an alley" argument, this is a common sense argument. You sincerely didn't know that people could record video from their monitor? Sureeee.
I'd still prefer people to not get hit by cars regardless if you think they deserve it or not. I think rooting for the cars in that scenario is kinda gross.
Sigh.
Try to stay on the topic at hand. Now we have to debate the accuracy of your analogy rather than the subject at hand.
Hint: It's not a 1:1 ratio.
No no no, you misunderstood... I'm just saying if you wear something revealing like that- Wait, no! I mean...
HELP! I'M BEING CANCEL CULTURED BY XERO! :'( I LIKE BEER! LOCK HER UP! BUTTERY MALES! HUNTER'S HUNG HOG!!!
Calm down.
You skipped the word illegal there.
What was illegal? It was consenting adults willingly uploading a video to the public domain.
If you put your movie online, is it public domain? Just because it's pornographic doesn't make it public domain.
You're right, porn doesn't automatically become public domain. That would be strange. It's public domain because they willingly agreed to the site's terms of service that say so.
IIRC it said that it's public not public domain. If you're out in public (including your front yard) you have no expectation of privacy. That doesn't mean anyone can use a thing that's in public to make money off of. Public does not mean public domain. Public means anyone could possibly see it. Public domain means the public owns it.
Who's making money off it?
Willing upload to the public domain? How is this public domain?
It's public domain through the terms of service they agreed to when they used the site. These terms have been quoted elsewhere in this post.
Did you find the site and read the terms of service or are you just making shit up to justify this?