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.
Nope. That would make reuploads for profit illegal, reupload for news purposes or because it’s of public import are wholely legal.
Morality is subjective but no chaturbate makes it very clear the streams are not private and they do not hold them to be private and anywhere you’re specifically told not to expect privacy is public.
Redistributing copyrighted material without permission is not only illegal when it’s for profit. What you’re alluding to is Fair Use (which does not require to be not-for-profit). And given the four factors of Fair Use, I think you’re going to have a hard time arguing in court that uploading the full stream without adding anything constitutes Fair Use.
And I did not say it was not in public. But it was made public intended for one-time, live viewing; and not respecting that is immoral.
.
Another thing we agree on. But you do realize that you telling them to go fuck themselves is based on a moral judgement as well?
And again, “[that’s] how the internet works” does not make it right.
.
And yet you do it, too, because moral considerations are important. And I disagree about moral arguments being weak, btw. You can make strong moral arguments; and there is an entire branch of philosophy about it.
Considering you were so vivid about me alledgly misquoting ealier, it is kind of remarkable that I did not say that.
But even if I did, ‘it’s not an invasion of privacy’ is not a counter to ‘it’s not right, even if foreseeable’ (paraphrasing here).
You mean “comment on a discussion forum”? Because I certainly don’t see me being emotional here.
.
So? I never said I agreed with Gibson on this. I just stated legal considerations and my opinion on the matter. While it seems from your reply in the other thread that you’re having a hard time with this, people other than you a capable of having original thoughts.
Yeah, it’s become very clear you don’t care whether your replies actual have bearing on what you’re replying to. Instead you keep making up stuff I didn’t say and accuse me of things you continue to do yourself. It seems a lot like you prefer to live in your fantasy world where you’re the strong free-thinking alpha male who has figured the world out, while I’m a “delicate cupcake”, “whiny loser”, “hyperventilat[ing]”, part of the “finger-wagging morality police” who has no clue about politics (nevermind I never talked about the political implications of this at all).
In other words, you continue to not make any actual points, and this is getting boring.
.