227
submitted 8 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

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
[-] hoanbridgetroll@midwest.social 213 points 8 months ago

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

[-] Blackbeard@lemmy.world 67 points 8 months ago

No doubt. Saw the videos, like what I saw. Would still vote for her.

[-] utopianfiat@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago

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

[-] Blackbeard@lemmy.world 49 points 8 months ago

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.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.one 17 points 8 months ago

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.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[-] bobman@unilem.org 5 points 8 months ago

Got a link?

[-] dan1101@lemm.ee 121 points 8 months ago

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@lemmy.world 12 points 8 months ago

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.

[-] Astroturfed@lemmy.world 14 points 8 months 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@lemmy.world 45 points 8 months ago
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 34 points 8 months 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.

[-] UsedAndDenied@lemmy.world 27 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

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?

[-] dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 22 points 8 months ago

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

[-] netburnr@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago

Mac get outta here

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Copernican@lemmy.world 17 points 8 months ago

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

[-] bradorsomething@ttrpg.network 13 points 8 months ago

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

[-] SeaJ@lemm.ee 11 points 8 months 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?

[-] missveeronica@lemmynsfw.com 7 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

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@lemmy.world 22 points 8 months ago

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

[-] RaoulDook@lemmy.world 21 points 8 months 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

[-] utopianfiat@lemmy.world 15 points 8 months ago
[-] Windex007@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months 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.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] MagicShel@programming.dev 12 points 8 months ago

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@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago

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)
[-] Widowmaker_Best_Girl@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago

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)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 12 Sep 2023
227 points (93.8% liked)

News

21302 readers
3190 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. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


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 11 months ago
MODERATORS