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.
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.
deleted by creator
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
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?
I don’t care that she did it, but if you have live sex for strangers on the Internet then you’ve got to realize that footage can be around forever.
deleted by creator
Agreed. Anyone can access it.
If there’s anything voters hate more than atheists, it’s women that show any sort of sexuality. Juxtapose that with several very high elections and appointments of men who have sexually assaulted women if you’d like to feel a little disgusted this morning.
I’d like to vote for a sex worker for president. They’d be way less likely to assault anyone or be a pedophile than most of the people we elect now.
Yeah I’m sure you will sleep just great after jacking off to a woman who specifically didnt want people viewing her deleted stuff.
Putting things on the internet and expecting people to not find/look at them is laughable. I’d still vote for her, and don’t really care.
Also, it’s a joke. I’m not going to watch it. From the discription it’s way to tame to actually get me off anyway. I need like every orifice filled with something. Preferably some kind of love action tentacle porn situation. Bonus points if their in a fur suit.
Missing the point.
She shouldnt expect it to disappear. But those who go looking for what was deleted and which she doesnt want viewed are messed up because it doesnt bother them what she feels.
Ah yes, feelings. The thing you can lean into and be right about anything. You feel right, so you are. Got it.
Asking to have some empathy isn’t the same thing as asking to use feelings to decide in everything you come across.
So if I understand correctly, our candidate live-streamed sexual activity to Chaturbate, and is mad that someone saved and uploaded the video elsewhere.
Our candidate is a naive idiot.
“Invasion of my privacy without consent” You waived any claim to privacy when you hit the Begin Stream button and invited To Whom It May Concern into your bedroom. The video left your computer and arrived on someone else’s computer, and hence permanently entered the state of being “on the internet.” You’re 40 years old, you and I grew up on the same internet in the same time period, you are both young and old enough to know better.
If you don’t want the entire internet to see your gonads, don’t upload your gonads to the internet. Probably don’t even photograph your gonads in the first place, because your phone probably puts your entire camera folder on the internet anyway.
On the topic of a 40 year old woman and candidate for state office sharing an active and apparently adventurous sex life with her husband: Excellent, carry on. Living as long as I have under the thumb of right wing hypocrites who spend their entire lives trying to criminalize anything except being white, male and straight pausing only to take it up the ass in an airport men’s room, I’d honestly prefer a candidate whose take on the matter is “YEAH I like getting dicked all the way down. Wanna watch?”
It’s the blaming someone else for something YOU did that chuffs my spuds here. You chose to broadcast. And you can’t stop the signal, Mal.
A grown adult woman fucked her grown adult husband on camera for adult friends viewing over chaturbate, and this is a scandal I’m supposed to care about?
That’s disgusting! What website are those tapes kept on? So I can avoid ever going to those places!
Mac get outta here
The moral colors of the pro piracy wing of lemmy coming out in force with no understanding of consent or nuance.
I’ve made sure to make all my sex videos as Vines, so no one will ever see them.
Who cares (aside from her clearly)? She is an adult and had sex with her husband (wouldn’t matter if it was not her husband either). Whoopdie doo. What are her views on healthcare and taxing carbon emissions?
She’s an idiot if she thinks live streaming porn of herself online was somehow ever going to be private.
Maybe so but Virginia has a revenge porn law and under that this is technically a crime, as it is intended to intimidate her. No one cared about the videos till she was running for office.
I would be too, that’s lost income.
Wow, what a body…I think this was either really stupid or really. I feel like this might have been leaked on purpose to get publicity…pity/empathy from the female voters and lust from everyone else. Whatever it was, she’s got my vote!
I don’t think it’ll hurt her much; though there certainly is some degree of difference between a private video being leaked and a public livestream being saved / leaked, they’re still both illegal invasions of privacy and hence this will be viewed by most reasonable people as Republican skullduggery rather than any moral failing on her part.
How come it is an invasion of her privacy if they’re live streaming? She’s just stupid.
Because consent in one instance doesn’t create consent in all instances. It’s not just a violation of ethics to repost, it’s also legally, copyright infringement, and completely irrelevant to her qualifications.
Wrong. Chaturbate’s own privacy policy clarifies that all uploaded or streamed content is public information.
Edit: You numbskulls are downvoting the site’s own terms of service. Morons.
Lotsa white knight bullshit on Lemmy.
It feels so mind-numbing to argue with these emotional block heads. A white woman from the blue team was ‘wronged’ and that’s all the emotional fuel you need to disregard all logic, including citing terms and conditions or pointing our the fact that live streaming yourself having sex isn’t exactly ‘private’.
I think most people objecting to it are primarily objecting on moral grounds, not legal ones.
deleted by creator
Public information is not the same as public domain.
all uploaded or streamed content is public information
PUBLIC INFORMATION
INFORMATION
You can’t even quote a comment correctly, and you feel compelled to do it twice. You want me to link Chaturbate’s ToS page? It’s there in black and white. Go touch grass.
I’m not quoting anything. I’m saying the TOS say it’s public information, not that they are giving up their copyright (which would be public domain).
Well I am:
I didn’t say a damn thing about copyright. They might as well have performed sex in a see-through box in the middle of town square and expected people not to record it. It’s public, and they were foolish to expect it not to be public.
You replied to a comment that said the reuploads are copyright infringement, calling it “Wrong”, citing the TOS.
And in one of your other comments quoting the TOS, you explicitly say that they state the streams are in public domain (a copyright term), when the TOS actually say they are public information.
