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.
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.
.
Lotsa white knight bullshit on Lemmy.
deleted by creator
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.
Public information is not the same as public domain.
.
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).
.
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.
I think that would depend on the rules that you agreed to when using the website or service.
For example, anything posted to Facebook is owned by facebook. They can do whatever they want with it.
I’m not sure what the rules for ‘chaturbate’ are.