The Republican Party of Virginia mails out nude photos of a candidate

[Anonymous]

They show the flier that was mailed out at the beginning of this piece:

https://www.nbc12.com/2023/10/24/republican-party-virginia-mails-out-thousands-explicit-fliers-about-susanna-gibson-scandal/?outputType=amp

It has a few pictures of her face and there's zero nudity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you’re a p*rn star you really can’t complain about that becoming an issue by your political opponents, WTH?

The concern is mainly about kids who will be exposed to the explicit mailings from Republicans.

I’m less concerned about that and more I just think you don’t need to share explicit photos without someone’s permission to raise their existence as an issue if you want to. It’s totally gratuitous and designed to shame her. It goes against all of their supposed values. It’s low and gross.

Do you understand what shame is? If she can't feel shsme on her own, if she acts shamelessly, then the community can shame her to enforce common values.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not revenge porn. It is pictures that were available to the public. All fair game. Revenge porn is the release of private materials. If it was her and her husband for private then fine. But this was all public.

Republicans distributed it without her consent. Period.

I get that she wants to be paid to be gross, but voters have a right to know who a candidate really is. Don't run for public office if you are the kind of person who sells porn.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous]They show the flier that was mailed out at the beginning of this piece:

https://www.nbc12.com/2023/10/24/republican-party-virginia-mails-out-thousands-explicit-fliers-about-susanna-gibson-scandal/?outputType=amp

It has a few pictures of her face and there's zero nudity.[/quote]

It was obvious it would be something like this. Thank you for posting. I'm sure everyone will ignore this though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not revenge porn. It is pictures that were available to the public. All fair game. Revenge porn is the release of private materials. If it was her and her husband for private then fine. But this was all public.

Republicans distributed it without her consent. Period.

I get that she wants to be paid to be gross, but voters have a right to know who a candidate really is. Don't run for public office if you are the kind of person who sells porn.

Ok. But that doesn’t make it ok for Republicans to send this “explicit” (their word) mailing out to thousands of homes, including images of her from a private chat room without her consent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not revenge porn. It is pictures that were available to the public. All fair game. Revenge porn is the release of private materials. If it was her and her husband for private then fine. But this was all public.

Republicans distributed it without her consent. Period.

I get that she wants to be paid to be gross, but voters have a right to know who a candidate really is. Don't run for public office if you are the kind of person who sells porn.

Ok. But that doesn’t make it ok for Republicans to send this “explicit” (their word) mailing out to thousands of homes, including images of her from a private chat room without her consent.

What do you mean by "private"? I think a more accurate word would be "pay walled."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not revenge porn. It is pictures that were available to the public. All fair game. Revenge porn is the release of private materials. If it was her and her husband for private then fine. But this was all public.

Republicans distributed it without her consent. Period.

I get that she wants to be paid to be gross, but voters have a right to know who a candidate really is. Don't run for public office if you are the kind of person who sells porn.

Ok. But that doesn’t make it ok for Republicans to send this “explicit” (their word) mailing out to thousands of homes, including images of her from a private chat room without her consent.

Why doesn't she list this fabulous way of making money and related accomplishments on her political site's bio? I don't see anything about this aspect of her life on her website.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not revenge porn. It is pictures that were available to the public. All fair game. Revenge porn is the release of private materials. If it was her and her husband for private then fine. But this was all public.

Republicans distributed it without her consent. Period.

Public figure. The rules are different.

The most relevant “rules” should be the ones they have for themselves, which are not the same as legality or “but my enemies are worse” or whatever other lame excuses. It’s just a question of whether you want to stand before your community and say “yeah I’m the guy who sent out explicit images of a womanout on a political mailer without her permission.”

Your rules are that it’s not okay for your political opponents to distribute hurtful information about you that makes you look bad unless you consent? LOL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not revenge porn. It is pictures that were available to the public. All fair game. Revenge porn is the release of private materials. If it was her and her husband for private then fine. But this was all public.

Republicans distributed it without her consent. Period.

I get that she wants to be paid to be gross, but voters have a right to know who a candidate really is. Don't run for public office if you are the kind of person who sells porn.

Ok. But that doesn’t make it ok for Republicans to send this “explicit” (their word) mailing out to thousands of homes, including images of her from a private chat room without her consent.

I watched the link newsclip. The "explicit" part is the language, for example her offering to let people watch her pee for pay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you’re a p*rn star you really can’t complain about that becoming an issue by your political opponents, WTH?

She isn’t a star. She is now notorious but in no world is she a “star.”

[Anonymous]

She should sue for a copyright violation. Make bank.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She should sue for a copyright violation. Make bank.

She should be honest and transparent and list her "movie credits" in her bio on her website.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She should sue for a copyright violation. Make bank.

If you're a lawyer, you should send back your degree. If you're not, you should take several seats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not revenge porn. It is pictures that were available to the public. All fair game. Revenge porn is the release of private materials. If it was her and her husband for private then fine. But this was all public.

Republicans distributed it without her consent. Period.

I get that she wants to be paid to be gross, but voters have a right to know who a candidate really is. Don't run for public office if you are the kind of person who sells porn.

Ok. But that doesn’t make it ok for Republicans to send this “explicit” (their word) mailing out to thousands of homes, including images of her from a private chat room without her consent.

I watched the link newsclip. The "explicit" part is the language, for example her offering to let people watch her pee for pay.

No danger for minors there. I doubt Virginia students can read.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you’re a p*rn star you really can’t complain about that becoming an issue by your political opponents, WTH?

The concern is mainly about kids who will be exposed to the explicit mailings from Republicans.

I’m less concerned about that and more I just think you don’t need to share explicit photos without someone’s permission to raise their existence as an issue if you want to. It’s totally gratuitous and designed to shame her. It goes against all of their supposed values. It’s low and gross.

Do you understand what shame is? If she can't feel shsme on her own, if she acts shamelessly, then the community can shame her to enforce common values.

If we are judging others based on “common values”, then how does this compare to politicians who break laws?