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.
That something was predictable doesn’t excuse the people doing it.
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
You can claim malicious dissemination of a nude, which is a crime in VA: https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter8/section18.2-386.2/
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.
.
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.
.
Gosh, you seem to care about this a lot…
Which is weird, because we seem to be in agreement about a major part:
Was it predictable that it would be recorded and redistributed? Sure. But that still doesn’t make it right.
.
Is it a crime if the perpetrator did it from outside of VA?
Unless they did it from South Carolina specifically, yes
Why the exception?
Because SC is the only state without a revenge porn law.
deleted by creator
chaturbate is free and public unless it’s specifically a paid private show.
I’m sorry you have failed to understand how the Internet works. I tried to inform you.
No? So then she’s an idiot and that’s clearly not a suitable trait for a politician.
I can’t decide if I wrote that a s joke or not, but I’m leaving it.