VA Democratic House candidate performed sex acts online for tips

[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:

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?

They don't. All the libs do is point fingers at anything they don't like.

[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:

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?

It's in the article.

[Anonymous]

oh noes! she was having sex with her husband. It makes me more likely to vote for her TBH.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:oh noes! she was having sex with her husband. It makes me more likely to vote for her TBH.

She's a swinger. Maybe you want in on the action too?

[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:

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?

It's in the article.

Now you’re just lying. In the article it says that WaPo was alerted to the videos, not that someone sent them video films. Telling someone where they are on the internet (go to this website, search under this name, etc) is NOT sending a video.

The article says the post them viewed the videos. No where does it ever stated the actual files were sent to them. I’m a democrat and I don’t want to lose the GA but lying and making things up just makes this all worse. SO STOP!

Here is the article: https://wapo.st/46czGIr

[Anonymous]

Sent the link. Same thing.

[Anonymous]

It doesn’t really matter. People vote by party line. No Dem who was going to vote for her is changing their vote to Republican, and if they say they were they were always going to vote Republican and they’re just lying.

Nobody is going in there and shading in D down ballot and not hers.

[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:

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?

It's in the article.

Pretend I can't read and cut and paste the exact sentence providing evidence it was a Republican.

[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:

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?

It's in the article.

Pretend I can't read and cut and paste the exact sentence providing evidence it was a Republican.

“ The Republican operative who alerted The Post to the videos denied any connection to the Owen campaign or other groups active in Virginia elections this year. The operative provided the information on the condition of anonymity to avoid being drawn into the controversy.”

[Anonymous]

From what I understand, Gibson was simply campaigning and engaging with new voters in a novel way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sent the link. Same thing.

Sending the link is not disseminating the video. Go to law school FFS.

[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:

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?

It's in the article.

Pretend I can't read and cut and paste the exact sentence providing evidence it was a Republican.

“ The Republican operative who alerted The Post to the videos denied any connection to the Owen campaign or other groups active in Virginia elections this year. The operative provided the information on the condition of anonymity to avoid being drawn into the controversy.”

Where in this quote does it state a video was sent? This really makes the Gibson campaigners look horrible and the Gibsons super dumb. Making the accusations that the Gibsons are sex crime victims is a travesty to all real victims out there.

Also, the right to privacy in a video or photo that has been self published online has already been litigated several times and there is case law on this. She forfeited her right to privacy, even in the nude, when she put herself online. That's it. Sorry. Do some case law work if you want the hard truth.

[Anonymous]

This is what the Democrats have become.

Supporting and fundraising for a candidate who is part of the porn industry and when her secret life is discovered, she cries, "Victim!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is what the Democrats have become.

Supporting and fundraising for a candidate who is part of the porn industry and when her secret life is discovered, she cries, "Victim!"

So just curious-are you planning to vote for a rapist in 2024 if you're lucky enough to have the opportunity?

[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:

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?

It's in the article.

Pretend I can't read and cut and paste the exact sentence providing evidence it was a Republican.

“ The Republican operative who alerted The Post to the videos denied any connection to the Owen campaign or other groups active in Virginia elections this year. The operative provided the information on the condition of anonymity to avoid being drawn into the controversy.”

How convenient. An anonymous source.