this post was submitted on 12 Sep 2023
227 points (93.8% liked)

News

23663 readers
4355 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 213 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Joke’s on them - I’m into legislators being comfortable with sexuality.

[–] Blackbeard 67 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)
[–] utopianfiat 8 points 1 year ago (9 children)

You should probably report where you saw them- it's revenge porn.

[–] Blackbeard 49 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (9 children)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Blackbeard 28 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (18 children)
[–] books 12 points 1 year ago

Nice job reading the tos.

load more comments (17 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

Got a link?

[–] [email protected] 122 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] xc2215x 12 points 1 year ago

Agreed. Anyone can access it.

[–] [email protected] 61 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Astroturfed 14 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] Astroturfed 45 points 1 year ago (5 children)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 34 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago (2 children)

That's disgusting! What website are those tapes kept on? So I can avoid ever going to those places!

[–] netburnr 5 points 1 year ago

Mac get outta here

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Copernican 17 points 1 year ago

The moral colors of the pro piracy wing of lemmy coming out in force with no understanding of consent or nuance.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago

I've made sure to make all my sex videos as Vines, so no one will ever see them.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago

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?

[–] Widowmaker_Best_Girl 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

She's an idiot if she thinks live streaming porn of herself online was somehow ever going to be private.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (23 children)

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.

[–] AbouBenAdhem 22 points 1 year ago (2 children)

That something was predictable doesn’t excuse the people doing it.

[–] RaoulDook 21 points 1 year ago (4 children)

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

[–] utopianfiat 16 points 1 year ago (5 children)
[–] Windex007 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Blackbeard 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (7 children)
load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (4 children)

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.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] utopianfiat 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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/

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (20 replies)
[–] Chainweasel 5 points 1 year ago

I would be too, that's lost income.

load more comments
view more: next ›