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.

  • missveeronica@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    28
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year 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.

    • MagicShel@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year 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.

      • missveeronica@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        My comment was about how she feels this is an invasion of privacy not about the legality of the situation. She posted these on the internet with her own free will for money. She didn’t have a problem posing for them.when it benefited her. Now, though, it’s a problem.

        Personally, I have no problem with her wanting to explore her sensuality. Good for her. I stop feeling sorry for her when she then declares it an invasion of privacy.

        • CoffeeJunkie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Did she do it for money? 🤔 I was under the impression that Chaturbate was a site for exhibitionists that wanted to sex chat, show themselves, have sex just for jollies.

          • missveeronica@lemmynsfw.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            According to the article from the nytimes, she raised money by asking for tokens in exchange for their suggestions to perform sex acts.

            Edit: or was it wapo? I read it somewhere that she was accepting money in exchange for sex acts.

          • Wogi@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Then there was that one time a nurse refused to help Riker escape unless he slept with her. So he did. And was captured anyway

      • missveeronica@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        17
        ·
        1 year ago

        To quote Raouldook

        "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"

        • dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          You’re not wrong. It’s not about victim blaming, but if you don’t look both ways when you cross the road, knowing full well that the road is full of cars, and then you get hit by a car, you should have known better. This isn’t a “don’t wear revealing clothing and walk down an alley” argument, this is a common sense argument. You sincerely didn’t know that people could record video from their monitor? Sureeee.

          • bobman@unilem.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Sigh.

            Try to stay on the topic at hand. Now we have to debate the accuracy of your analogy rather than the subject at hand.

            Hint: It’s not a 1:1 ratio.

      • thefartographer@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        25
        ·
        1 year ago

        No no no, you misunderstood… I’m just saying if you wear something revealing like that- Wait, no! I mean…

        HELP! I’M BEING CANCEL CULTURED BY XERO! :'( I LIKE BEER! LOCK HER UP! BUTTERY MALES! HUNTER’S HUNG HOG!!!

        • Cethin@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          If you put your movie online, is it public domain? Just because it’s pornographic doesn’t make it public domain.

          • AlDente@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You’re right, porn doesn’t automatically become public domain. That would be strange. It’s public domain because they willingly agreed to the site’s terms of service that say so.

            • Cethin@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              IIRC it said that it’s public not public domain. If you’re out in public (including your front yard) you have no expectation of privacy. That doesn’t mean anyone can use a thing that’s in public to make money off of. Public does not mean public domain. Public means anyone could possibly see it. Public domain means the public owns it.

          • AlDente@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s public domain through the terms of service they agreed to when they used the site. These terms have been quoted elsewhere in this post.

    • Copernican@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Did you find the site and read the terms of service or are you just making shit up to justify this?