Susanna Gibson, a Democrat running in one of seven tossup House seats in the closely divided legislature, denounced the “illegal invasion of my privacy.”

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.

  • BlackbeardMEnglish
    34•1 year ago

    “As noted in our Privacy Policy, all information and/or content you choose to post and/or share through your profile on the Platform, through chat (including private chat or “direct message”), and all content you stream or otherwise share through the Platform is considered public information. You agree to limit the information you share through the Platform keeping in mind we cannot control the use of such information by those with whom you share your information.”

    All Chaturbate streams are public domain according to their ToS. She agreed to those terms when she decided to put porn on the internet.

    • @Makiterr@iusearchlinux.fyi
      2•1 year ago

      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.

      • @Madison420@lemmy.world
        13•1 year ago

        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.

        • @Makiterr@iusearchlinux.fyi
          2•1 year ago

          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.

          • BlackbeardMEnglish
            7•1 year ago

            Some would say that livestreaming sex for strangers is immoral, and I’d also tell them to go fuck themselves. Morality is absolutely the weakest argument you can put forward in this situation. We all know how the internet works nowadays, and it doesn’t cater to sheepishness.

            • @Makiterr@iusearchlinux.fyi
              1•1 year ago

              Some would say that livestreaming sex for strangers is immoral, and I’d also tell them to go fuck themselves.

              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.

              • BlackbeardMEnglish
                4•1 year ago

                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?

                Yes, which is why arguing morality is literally the weakest argument you can put forward. Nobody cares.

                And again, “[that’s] how the internet works” does not make it right.

                And “it was leaked” doesn’t make it an “invasion of privacy”. Clutch your pearls elsewhere. I’m not picking up whatever the hell it is you’re putting down.

                • @Makiterr@iusearchlinux.fyi
                  1•1 year ago

                  Yes, which is why arguing morality is literally the weakest argument you can put forward.

                  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.

                  doesn’t make it an “invasion of privacy”.

                  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).

                  Clutch your pearls elsewhere.

                  You mean “comment on a discussion forum”? Because I certainly don’t see me being emotional here.

                  • BlackbeardMEnglish
                    4•1 year ago

                    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.

                    Good for you. I guess?

                    Considering you were so vivid about me alledgly misquoting ealier, it is kind of remarkable that I did not say that.

                    glances at article

                    shrugs

                    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).

                    Don’t care.

                    You mean “comment on a discussion forum”? Because I certainly don’t see me being emotional here.

                    The finger-wagging morality police now trying to feign disinterest. What a waste of oxygen.