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.

  • RaoulDook@lemmy.worldEnglish
    3211·
    1 year ago

    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

      • Windex007@lemmy.world
        8·
        1 year ago

        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.

          • Makiterr@iusearchlinux.fyi
            33·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • Blackbeard@lemmy.worldEnglish
              32·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • Makiterr@iusearchlinux.fyi
                21·
                1 year ago

                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.

                • Blackbeard@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  21·
                  1 year ago

                  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.

                  • Makiterr@iusearchlinux.fyi
                    21·
                    1 year ago

                    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.