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.”
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.
Joke’s on them - I’m into legislators being comfortable with sexuality.
No doubt. Saw the videos, like what I saw. Would still vote for her.
You should probably report where you saw them- it's revenge porn.
They've already been removed from recurbate, so presumably her team is searching for the alternatives today. They're not at all difficult to find, and given that it was consensual and posted to the internet by her and her husband, I find it highly unlikely a judge will rule that it's revenge porn, which requires that the third party "disseminate or sell" the material. All they did was tip off the press, who also didn't disseminate or sell the videos. Also the servers they're located on now are probably foreign.
I think that's the problem, it wasn't posted by her or her husband.
She and her husband were streaming on Chaturbate. Someone archived the videos.
A month after she announced her candidacy, someone took the archived copies and uploaded them.
A little different than if she or her husband did it themselves or if it were automatic. The timing seems retributive.
All Chaturbate streams are public domain according to their ToS. She agreed to those terms when she decided to put porn on the internet.
Nice job reading the tos.
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.
Nope. That would make reuploads for profit illegal, reupload for news purposes or because it's of public import are wholely legal.
Morality is subjective but no chaturbate makes it very clear the streams are not private and they do not hold them to be private and anywhere you're specifically told not to expect privacy is public.
Redistributing copyrighted material without permission is not only illegal when it's for profit. What you're alluding to is Fair Use (which does not require to be not-for-profit). And given the four factors of Fair Use, I think you're going to have a hard time arguing in court that uploading the full stream without adding anything constitutes Fair Use.
And I did not say it was not in public. But it was made public intended for one-time, live viewing; and not respecting that is immoral.
Some would say that livestreaming sex for strangers is immoral, and I'd also tell them to go fuck themselves. Morality is absolutely the weakest argument you can put forward in this situation. We all know how the internet works nowadays, and it doesn't cater to sheepishness.
Another thing we agree on. But you do realize that you telling them to go fuck themselves is based on a moral judgement as well?
And again, "[that's] how the internet works" does not make it right.
Yes, which is why arguing morality is literally the weakest argument you can put forward. Nobody cares.
And "it was leaked" doesn't make it an "invasion of privacy". Clutch your pearls elsewhere. I'm not picking up whatever the hell it is you're putting down.
And yet you do it, too, because moral considerations are important. And I disagree about moral arguments being weak, btw. You can make strong moral arguments; and there is an entire branch of philosophy about it.
Considering you were so vivid about me alledgly misquoting ealier, it is kind of remarkable that I did not say that.
But even if I did, 'it's not an invasion of privacy' is not a counter to 'it's not right, even if foreseeable' (paraphrasing here).
You mean "comment on a discussion forum"? Because I certainly don't see me being emotional here.
Please explain the difference between dissemination of information and "tipping off" someone about that information
The same difference as telling someone in which alley they can buy weed and selling the weed yourself
Information isn't a tangible thing, though. The act of "tipping off" is conveying the information. In your example, it's like taking a thing of value and telling someone where they can pick up a bag of weed that happens to be for the price they paid.
"I find it highly unlikely" should have been the operative phrase that gave away the fact that I'm not a judge or prosecutor, so my definition doesn't really hold water in a court of law. Morehead v. Commonwealth of Virginia gives more information on what qualifies as "dissemination", if you're curious. The long and the short of it is that the offending husband actually uploaded images to a website, which completes the "widespread communication" process. Furthermore, chaturbate's own privacy policy says, "all information and content you determine to share or stream through the Platform, including in 'private' and/or password protected situations, is considered public information".
The sex was consensual, their faces were clearly visible, and the videos were uploaded willingly to a publicly accessible site by Ms. Gibson where she agreed that said content would be deemed public information. Seems pretty cut and dry to me.
That is not what the Chaturbate TOS says. She did not agree that the content would be public. Users are not allowed to download material off the site.
In this case dissemination would be a third party posting the video without her consent. "Tipping off" someone about that information is equivalent to sharing a video found online.
"such and such purposefully uploaded this content to this site using their known profile" is not dissemination.
Proof it's revenge porn.
It's nude images nonconsensually disseminated for the purpose of hurting someone, which is the definition of revenge porn under VA law
It is in no way nonconsensually disseminated. She uploaded the videos willingly and agreed to include them in the public domain per the terms of service of the site.
That's not what the TOS says. See this comment: https://lemmy.world/comment/3364907
And also this:
Just to repeat: for the purpose of hurting someone. Intent is a pretty big deal in criminal law. That's why murder and manslaughter are different crimes with different sentencing guidelines. When she and her husband posted them, they weren't trying to hurt someone's reputation. This coverage is a result of someone deliberately trying cause harm to her career.
So what you're saying is that we should get a nudist to run for office because then the press and opposition will never be able to use a photo of them in a negative context or risk going to prison?
https://youtu.be/vx-HWI_IlJU?si=SsW1wneLbrrMh0iT
Got a link?