VA Democratic House candidate performed sex acts online for tips

[Anonymous]

Did she end up blowing the guy? I watched the first couple minutes - just looked like reverse cowgirl sex.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I literally don't care what any consenting adults do in their bedroom. Republican or Democrat.

Yes, we are well aware of that.

You do care what consenting adults do in their bedroom? Why is that?

I have morals.

1. It's gross that you're judging what other people do in their own bedroom. You really spend time thinking about it and deciding what is OK or not?

2. Everyone has a different sense of right and wrong and yours is no better than anyone else's. Many people in 2023 are sex positive. Sex between consenting adults is healthy and normal.

I don't get judgmental people who try to force their beliefs on others. That's not OK.

Gibson obviously doesn’t agree with you as she is trying to delete everything off the web.

She didn’t knowingly consent to it being widely available.

I was talking about PP’s judgmental attitude. Why does she think her “morals” are any more important than anyone else’s?

The terms of service make it abundantly clear what her agreement to stream her sexual acts for money over the service entail. She consented. Now she’s trying in vain to pull everything off the internet.

I said “knowingly”.

The TOS are just to protect the hosting company. The people who recorded did so without her consent and shared without her consent. It’s still a violation even if the hosting company is protected legally. She can certainly go after whoever recorded and shared it.

NP here. She can "certainly go after" whoever she wants, and that party file a motion for it to be dismissed which it probably would be. How it is a violation (it is not)? She did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and she does not hold a copyright to her performance. Her and her husband are incredibly dumb, naive and delusional. Ignorance of the law isn't a defense. "I didn't know" isn't going to win her a case. Doesn't sound like she has deep pockets to fund a witch hunt like this, but it would be interesting if she did. I would love to see this be litigated.

I am sorry she did this, because I want a democrat to take this election. But you can't help stupid, and those two are super stupid.

Naive? Poor judgment? Yes. But it was recorded and shared without her consent.

You keep harping on a concept you don’t understand under this fact pattern. She gave her consent, via posting it on the livestream per the terms of the site on the internet. Would a similarly situated person (a well educated couple with one being a lawyer) understand that they give up their right to privacy by posting this video on the internet to strangers under the terms and conditions of the website? Yes. That’s it, there is no standing. She can’t say I didn’t understand, she can’t claim I didn’t read it, she can’t claim it was a mistake (times what, 15?). She gave consent as soon as she started her livestream. Period. if she didn’t read it, that’s her problem, onerous is on her. people need to read the fine print of things they agree to.

I’m sorry you’re so upset about this. But them the breaks.

The republicans party didn’t pirate the videos and show them in a press conference. Any third party is going to point to the same

I'm not upset about it at all. But I can understand how she might feel violated that someone recorded her without her permission AND distributed it .

Distributing without consent with intent to harass certainly falls under the revenge porn laws.

She gave consent. I am sure she feels violated because she doesn’t seem to comprehend how she gave consent but that doesn’t mean she has a claim. And she and you are conflating the revenge porn laws and IP law. This wasn’t a case of her opponent or the republicans party or her ex boyfriend distributing the film to harass her. The tipster just informed the Washington Post how to find it. They didn’t publish it. They didn’t distribute it. You and her act like they had a press conference where they old school rolled out a tv and vcr and played the tape. That’s not what happened and you know it. Tipping a journalist off about a video someone live streamed isn’t revenge porn. And making and sticking to that argument really undermines the victims who really are. So stop.

[Anonymous]

I’m an R and if true, this would make me seriously consider voting for her. She’s not bad looking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I literally don't care what any consenting adults do in their bedroom. Republican or Democrat.

Yes, we are well aware of that.

You do care what consenting adults do in their bedroom? Why is that?

I have morals.

1. It's gross that you're judging what other people do in their own bedroom. You really spend time thinking about it and deciding what is OK or not?

2. Everyone has a different sense of right and wrong and yours is no better than anyone else's. Many people in 2023 are sex positive. Sex between consenting adults is healthy and normal.

I don't get judgmental people who try to force their beliefs on others. That's not OK.

Gibson obviously doesn’t agree with you as she is trying to delete everything off the web.

She didn’t knowingly consent to it being widely available.

I was talking about PP’s judgmental attitude. Why does she think her “morals” are any more important than anyone else’s?

The terms of service make it abundantly clear what her agreement to stream her sexual acts for money over the service entail. She consented. Now she’s trying in vain to pull everything off the internet.

I said “knowingly”.

The TOS are just to protect the hosting company. The people who recorded did so without her consent and shared without her consent. It’s still a violation even if the hosting company is protected legally. She can certainly go after whoever recorded and shared it.

NP here. She can "certainly go after" whoever she wants, and that party file a motion for it to be dismissed which it probably would be. How it is a violation (it is not)? She did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and she does not hold a copyright to her performance. Her and her husband are incredibly dumb, naive and delusional. Ignorance of the law isn't a defense. "I didn't know" isn't going to win her a case. Doesn't sound like she has deep pockets to fund a witch hunt like this, but it would be interesting if she did. I would love to see this be litigated.

I am sorry she did this, because I want a democrat to take this election. But you can't help stupid, and those two are super stupid.

Naive? Poor judgment? Yes. But it was recorded and shared without her consent.

You keep harping on a concept you don’t understand under this fact pattern. She gave her consent, via posting it on the livestream per the terms of the site on the internet. Would a similarly situated person (a well educated couple with one being a lawyer) understand that they give up their right to privacy by posting this video on the internet to strangers under the terms and conditions of the website? Yes. That’s it, there is no standing. She can’t say I didn’t understand, she can’t claim I didn’t read it, she can’t claim it was a mistake (times what, 15?). She gave consent as soon as she started her livestream. Period. if she didn’t read it, that’s her problem, onerous is on her. people need to read the fine print of things they agree to.

I’m sorry you’re so upset about this. But them the breaks.

The republicans party didn’t pirate the videos and show them in a press conference. Any third party is going to point to the same

I'm not upset about it at all. But I can understand how she might feel violated that someone recorded her without her permission AND distributed it .

Distributing without consent with intent to harass certainly falls under the revenge porn laws.

She gave consent. I am sure she feels violated because she doesn’t seem to comprehend how she gave consent but that doesn’t mean she has a claim. And she and you are conflating the revenge porn laws and IP law. This wasn’t a case of her opponent or the republicans party or her ex boyfriend distributing the film to harass her. The tipster just informed the Washington Post how to find it. They didn’t publish it. They didn’t distribute it. You and her act like they had a press conference where they old school rolled out a tv and vcr and played the tape. That’s not what happened and you know it. Tipping a journalist off about a video someone live streamed isn’t revenge porn. And making and sticking to that argument really undermines the victims who really are. So stop.

A Republican sent it to WaPo. He "distributed" it without her consent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I literally don't care what any consenting adults do in their bedroom. Republican or Democrat.

Yes, we are well aware of that.

You do care what consenting adults do in their bedroom? Why is that?

I have morals.

1. It's gross that you're judging what other people do in their own bedroom. You really spend time thinking about it and deciding what is OK or not?

2. Everyone has a different sense of right and wrong and yours is no better than anyone else's. Many people in 2023 are sex positive. Sex between consenting adults is healthy and normal.

I don't get judgmental people who try to force their beliefs on others. That's not OK.

Gibson obviously doesn’t agree with you as she is trying to delete everything off the web.

She didn’t knowingly consent to it being widely available.

I was talking about PP’s judgmental attitude. Why does she think her “morals” are any more important than anyone else’s?

If you don't want it plastered on the front page of the WaPo, don't do it.
She broke the cardinal rule of politics.

Totally agree. But it doesn't make it OK for someone to distribute her naked images without her consent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I literally don't care what any consenting adults do in their bedroom. Republican or Democrat.

Yes, we are well aware of that.

You do care what consenting adults do in their bedroom? Why is that?

I have morals.

1. It's gross that you're judging what other people do in their own bedroom. You really spend time thinking about it and deciding what is OK or not?

2. Everyone has a different sense of right and wrong and yours is no better than anyone else's. Many people in 2023 are sex positive. Sex between consenting adults is healthy and normal.

I don't get judgmental people who try to force their beliefs on others. That's not OK.

When are you going to understand and admit that this isn't about what consenting adults do behind closed doors? We couldn't care less what kind of sex they enjoy. Go for it.
This wasn't "behind closed doors." It was on the internet for others to participate in and then she had the audacity to run for public office.

If it is all ok, why is she desperately trying to get the content scrubbed? Why isn't she proud of her porn site? Why not add it to her campaign website if it is all ok?

I question her judgment and her morals. I also do not believe she would be an advocate for what is best for children given her judgment.

I agree that it shows poor judgment for someone running for office.

I was addressing the PP’s comment that they do judge people based on what they do in their bedroom.

This isn't privately consenting to a sex act in your own bedroom. This is like opening the windows and inviting people to stand in the yard offering cash tips for you to do lewd acts. And yes of course I judge that.

It wasn't published for public viewing. Someone in a private setting recorded it without her knowledge or consent. Someone (else) distributed it without her consent with intent to harrass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I literally don't care what any consenting adults do in their bedroom. Republican or Democrat.

Yes, we are well aware of that.

You do care what consenting adults do in their bedroom? Why is that?

I have morals.

1. It's gross that you're judging what other people do in their own bedroom. You really spend time thinking about it and deciding what is OK or not?

2. Everyone has a different sense of right and wrong and yours is no better than anyone else's. Many people in 2023 are sex positive. Sex between consenting adults is healthy and normal.

I don't get judgmental people who try to force their beliefs on others. That's not OK.

Gibson obviously doesn’t agree with you as she is trying to delete everything off the web.

She didn’t knowingly consent to it being widely available.

I was talking about PP’s judgmental attitude. Why does she think her “morals” are any more important than anyone else’s?

If you don't want it plastered on the front page of the WaPo, don't do it.
She broke the cardinal rule of politics.

Totally agree. But it doesn't make it OK for someone to distribute her naked images without her consent.

No consent was needed based on how the site operated and the terms of use she agreed to. It’s completely open. Check it out!

[Anonymous]

Is she trying to fill an open seat?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I literally don't care what any consenting adults do in their bedroom. Republican or Democrat.

Yes, we are well aware of that.

You do care what consenting adults do in their bedroom? Why is that?

I have morals.

1. It's gross that you're judging what other people do in their own bedroom. You really spend time thinking about it and deciding what is OK or not?

2. Everyone has a different sense of right and wrong and yours is no better than anyone else's. Many people in 2023 are sex positive. Sex between consenting adults is healthy and normal.

I don't get judgmental people who try to force their beliefs on others. That's not OK.

Gibson obviously doesn’t agree with you as she is trying to delete everything off the web.

She didn’t knowingly consent to it being widely available.

I was talking about PP’s judgmental attitude. Why does she think her “morals” are any more important than anyone else’s?

The terms of service make it abundantly clear what her agreement to stream her sexual acts for money over the service entail. She consented. Now she’s trying in vain to pull everything off the internet.

I said “knowingly”.

The TOS are just to protect the hosting company. The people who recorded did so without her consent and shared without her consent. It’s still a violation even if the hosting company is protected legally. She can certainly go after whoever recorded and shared it.

NP here. She can "certainly go after" whoever she wants, and that party file a motion for it to be dismissed which it probably would be. How it is a violation (it is not)? She did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and she does not hold a copyright to her performance. Her and her husband are incredibly dumb, naive and delusional. Ignorance of the law isn't a defense. "I didn't know" isn't going to win her a case. Doesn't sound like she has deep pockets to fund a witch hunt like this, but it would be interesting if she did. I would love to see this be litigated.

I am sorry she did this, because I want a democrat to take this election. But you can't help stupid, and those two are super stupid.

Naive? Poor judgment? Yes. But it was recorded and shared without her consent.

You keep harping on a concept you don’t understand under this fact pattern. She gave her consent, via posting it on the livestream per the terms of the site on the internet. Would a similarly situated person (a well educated couple with one being a lawyer) understand that they give up their right to privacy by posting this video on the internet to strangers under the terms and conditions of the website? Yes. That’s it, there is no standing. She can’t say I didn’t understand, she can’t claim I didn’t read it, she can’t claim it was a mistake (times what, 15?). She gave consent as soon as she started her livestream. Period. if she didn’t read it, that’s her problem, onerous is on her. people need to read the fine print of things they agree to.

I’m sorry you’re so upset about this. But them the breaks.

The republicans party didn’t pirate the videos and show them in a press conference. Any third party is going to point to the same

I'm not upset about it at all. But I can understand how she might feel violated that someone recorded her without her permission AND distributed it .

Distributing without consent with intent to harass certainly falls under the revenge porn laws.

She gave consent. I am sure she feels violated because she doesn’t seem to comprehend how she gave consent but that doesn’t mean she has a claim. And she and you are conflating the revenge porn laws and IP law. This wasn’t a case of her opponent or the republicans party or her ex boyfriend distributing the film to harass her. The tipster just informed the Washington Post how to find it. They didn’t publish it. They didn’t distribute it. You and her act like they had a press conference where they old school rolled out a tv and vcr and played the tape. That’s not what happened and you know it. Tipping a journalist off about a video someone live streamed isn’t revenge porn. And making and sticking to that argument really undermines the victims who really are. So stop.

A Republican sent it to WaPo. He "distributed" it without her consent.

No. He didn’t download and then send the video. He also didn’t watch the livestream live and record it then. He found the video online and told WaPo where to find it. There was no distribution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is she trying to fill an open seat?

Yes. The district was just redrawn and there is no incumbent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is she trying to fill an open seat?

Yes. The district was just redrawn and there is no incumbent.

Ah so her seat is open?

[Anonymous]

Are her campaign events open to families or are they still adults only?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Morning drive time radio stations in RVA are having a field day with reading and playing her transcripts bleeped of course. But hilarious nonetheless.

And this is extremely helpful in getting women to vote for Republicans.

Why?

I was being sarcastic. Because Republicans already have a major problem with attracting women to vote for them and mocking a woman for her sex life will not help their cause at all.

Women are more critical about these things than men are.

Of course. But we want to rip each other to shreds, no men are allowed to intervine or comment. For example, your wife is allowed to comment on her sister's weight gain however don't even dream about mentioning it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I literally don't care what any consenting adults do in their bedroom. Republican or Democrat.

Yes, we are well aware of that.

You do care what consenting adults do in their bedroom? Why is that?

I have morals.

1. It's gross that you're judging what other people do in their own bedroom. You really spend time thinking about it and deciding what is OK or not?

2. Everyone has a different sense of right and wrong and yours is no better than anyone else's. Many people in 2023 are sex positive. Sex between consenting adults is healthy and normal.

I don't get judgmental people who try to force their beliefs on others. That's not OK.

Gibson obviously doesn’t agree with you as she is trying to delete everything off the web.

She didn’t knowingly consent to it being widely available.

I was talking about PP’s judgmental attitude. Why does she think her “morals” are any more important than anyone else’s?

The terms of service make it abundantly clear what her agreement to stream her sexual acts for money over the service entail. She consented. Now she’s trying in vain to pull everything off the internet.

I said “knowingly”.

The TOS are just to protect the hosting company. The people who recorded did so without her consent and shared without her consent. It’s still a violation even if the hosting company is protected legally. She can certainly go after whoever recorded and shared it.

NP here. She can "certainly go after" whoever she wants, and that party file a motion for it to be dismissed which it probably would be. How it is a violation (it is not)? She did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and she does not hold a copyright to her performance. Her and her husband are incredibly dumb, naive and delusional. Ignorance of the law isn't a defense. "I didn't know" isn't going to win her a case. Doesn't sound like she has deep pockets to fund a witch hunt like this, but it would be interesting if she did. I would love to see this be litigated.

I am sorry she did this, because I want a democrat to take this election. But you can't help stupid, and those two are super stupid.

Naive? Poor judgment? Yes. But it was recorded and shared without her consent.

You keep harping on a concept you don’t understand under this fact pattern. She gave her consent, via posting it on the livestream per the terms of the site on the internet. Would a similarly situated person (a well educated couple with one being a lawyer) understand that they give up their right to privacy by posting this video on the internet to strangers under the terms and conditions of the website? Yes. That’s it, there is no standing. She can’t say I didn’t understand, she can’t claim I didn’t read it, she can’t claim it was a mistake (times what, 15?). She gave consent as soon as she started her livestream. Period. if she didn’t read it, that’s her problem, onerous is on her. people need to read the fine print of things they agree to.

I’m sorry you’re so upset about this. But them the breaks.

The republicans party didn’t pirate the videos and show them in a press conference. Any third party is going to point to the same

I'm not upset about it at all. But I can understand how she might feel violated that someone recorded her without her permission AND distributed it .

Distributing without consent with intent to harass certainly falls under the revenge porn laws.

She gave consent. I am sure she feels violated because she doesn’t seem to comprehend how she gave consent but that doesn’t mean she has a claim. And she and you are conflating the revenge porn laws and IP law. This wasn’t a case of her opponent or the republicans party or her ex boyfriend distributing the film to harass her. The tipster just informed the Washington Post how to find it. They didn’t publish it. They didn’t distribute it. You and her act like they had a press conference where they old school rolled out a tv and vcr and played the tape. That’s not what happened and you know it. Tipping a journalist off about a video someone live streamed isn’t revenge porn. And making and sticking to that argument really undermines the victims who really are. So stop.

A Republican sent it to WaPo. He "distributed" it without her consent.

Do you have any evidence for this assertion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I literally don't care what any consenting adults do in their bedroom. Republican or Democrat.

Yes, we are well aware of that.

You do care what consenting adults do in their bedroom? Why is that?

I have morals.

1. It's gross that you're judging what other people do in their own bedroom. You really spend time thinking about it and deciding what is OK or not?

2. Everyone has a different sense of right and wrong and yours is no better than anyone else's. Many people in 2023 are sex positive. Sex between consenting adults is healthy and normal.

I don't get judgmental people who try to force their beliefs on others. That's not OK.

When are you going to understand and admit that this isn't about what consenting adults do behind closed doors? We couldn't care less what kind of sex they enjoy. Go for it.
This wasn't "behind closed doors." It was on the internet for others to participate in and then she had the audacity to run for public office.

If it is all ok, why is she desperately trying to get the content scrubbed? Why isn't she proud of her porn site? Why not add it to her campaign website if it is all ok?

I question her judgment and her morals. I also do not believe she would be an advocate for what is best for children given her judgment.

I agree that it shows poor judgment for someone running for office.

I was addressing the PP’s comment that they do judge people based on what they do in their bedroom.

This isn't privately consenting to a sex act in your own bedroom. This is like opening the windows and inviting people to stand in the yard offering cash tips for you to do lewd acts. And yes of course I judge that.

It wasn't published for public viewing. Someone in a private setting recorded it without her knowledge or consent. Someone (else) distributed it without her consent with intent to harrass.

The terms of service explicitly state that any content posted on their site should be considered public information. It literally says "public information." If you can't understand what that means, you should not be holding or running for a political office.