Privacy, Politics, and Porn
The theory of the Internet clashes with its reality.
In “Her Online Sex Life Was Exposed. She Lost Her Election. Now She’s Speaking Out.” Alexander Burns, head of news at POLITICO, highlights a scandal that rocked a state legislative race here in Virginia a few months back.
It is not often that a state legislative campaign in an off-season election seizes the national spotlight. But that is what happened in September, when the Washington Post revealed that a promising Virginia Democrat, Susanna Gibson, had previously been captured in a recorded video performing sex acts online with her husband.
[…]
The video — a recording of an explicit livestream that the Post said had been uploaded elsewhere on the internet — had been shared by a Republican political operative, according to the paper. The Post’s report upended Gibson’s life, to say nothing of her candidacy.
“I’m fundamentally changed as a human having gone through something like that,” she said in an interview.
[…]
To explore the difficult social and legal questions that churned through Virginia politics, POLITICO Magazine spoke with Gibson about her experience in the campaign — and the implications of that race for a larger cohort of younger candidates who grew up in a world of increasingly blurry lines around their public, private and online lives.
It’s an interesting case, to be sure. Here’s the key bits from the WaPo story linked above:
A Democrat running for a crucial seat in Virginia’s House of Delegates performed sex acts with her husband for a live online audience and encouraged viewers to pay them with “tips” for specific requests, according to online videos viewed by The Washington Post.
Susanna Gibson, a nurse practitioner and mother of two young children running in a highly competitive suburban Richmond district, streamed sex acts on Chaturbate, a platform that says it takes its name from “the act of masturbating while chatting online.”
Chaturbate videos are streamed live on that site and are often archived on other publicly available sites. More than a dozen videos of the couple captured from the Chaturbate streamwere archived on one of those sites — Recurbate — in September 2022, after she entered the race. The most recent were two videos archived on Sept. 30, 2022. It is unclear when the live stream occurred.
While still listed on Recurbate, those videos were no longer available for viewing as of Saturday, after a Republican operative alerted The Washington Post about them. But the videos remained live on another non-password-protectedsite, which The Post viewed. At least two other publicly available sites displayed explicit still photos from the videos, The Post confirmed.
Gibson, 40, can be seen in the videos soliciting “tips” for performing specific acts — in apparent violation of Chaturbate’s terms and conditions, which say: “Requesting or demanding specific acts for tips may result in a ban from the Platform for all parties involved.”
In at least two videos, she tells viewers she is “raising money for a good cause.”
In multiple videos, Gibson interrupts sex acts to type into a bedside computer. Speaking directly into the screen, she urges viewers to provide tips, which are paid through “tokens” purchased through the site. In at least two videos, she agrees to perform certain acts only in a “private room,” an arrangement that requires the viewer to pay more.
“I need, like, more tokens before I let him do that,” she responds to a request that they perform a certain act. “One token, no. More. Raising money for a good cause.”
Almost immediately, as tips apparently arrive, she says “thank you” five times and tells her husband she will agree to that act.
Gibson takes the lead in addressing viewers on videos viewed by The Post, but in one case her husband, an attorney, chimes in with, “C’mon, guys,” to echo her entreaties for tips.
In a written statement, Gibson called the exposure of the videos “an illegal invasion of my privacy designed to humiliate me and my family.”
“It won’t intimidate me and it won’t silence me,” she said. “My political opponents and their Republican allies have proven they’re willing to commit a sex crime to attack me and my family because there’s no line they won’t cross to silence women when they speak up.”
Daniel P. Watkins, a lawyer for Gibson, said disseminating the videos constitutes a violation of the state’s revenge porn law, which makes it a Class 1 misdemeanor to “maliciously” distribute nude or sexual images of another person with “intent to coerce, harass, or intimidate.”
This strikes me as more than a stretch. Gibson wasn’t betrayed by a byfriend or hookup who took nude videos of her surreptitiously. She was performing sex work on a global platform.
For obvious reasons, it’s against said platform’s terms of service to record the sex shows. But they warn that it’s really, really easy to do so and that such content is likely to be distributed to any number of online porn sites. Doing so is a violation of copyright laws but, alas, the remedy is to file a DMCA takedown notice—which isn’t much of a remedy!
Gibson’s spin here is rather unconvincing:
My entire life was rocked on Sept. 11, when the article ran. It ran, implying that I performed sex acts online with my husband for money.
I have not viewed said videos and have no interest in doing so. But I take the WaPo reporter’s word for it, given that I can’t imagine the paper ran the story without editors fact-checking it.
It was really written based on this Dropbox file that self-described Republican operatives shopped around. They had found these videos on the dark web and shopped them around to various news outlets. I didn’t have any idea that there were ever videos of me that had been made and uploaded to multiple sites.
As noted in the WaPo report, the videos were on something called Recurbate, which a quick Google search shows was on the open web. Apparently, Chaturbate successfully “seized” the domain on November 17, whatever that means. But it also appears that several clone sites with the same name exist.
I hired an amazing attorney who worked around the clock and wrote them several letters, essentially saying: To be clear, Ms. Gibson never acknowledged or consented to videos being recorded, this is illegal pornography because it is illegal to record someone in a state of undress without consent.
It was a few days of feeling hopeful, then swung from hopeful to devastated. How can this be happening? How can a national news outlet decide to run a story about this? I think if I wasn’t a candidate, the Post probably would have been appalled at the invasion of my privacy. But because I was a candidate, they decided that it was a political story, rather than an invasion of my privacy and potentially a crime.
Honestly, while political operatives sending this sort of thing to reporters to use as leverage against the opposition is somewhat sleazy, I think the Post made the right call in reporting the story. They didn’t include salacious screenshots or anything. And, again, this wasn’t simply a candidate sharing racy photos with a boyfriend—which I agree would be private behavior that’s not newsworthy—but rather one performing sex acts on a public website for tips. That’s information voters might want to know.
I think this is going to continue to happen as millennials age into running for office. There was a 2014 study conducted by McAfee that said or showed that 90 percent of millennial women have taken nude photos at some point. This is something that is very common, especially in the younger generations.
I have no idea what number of millennial women have been online sex workers. It’s almost certainly higher than it was for older generations. But, again, conflating that and “have taken nude photos” is disingenuous and I’m shocked Burns never once seeks to make that distinction.
Now, here, though, I mostly agree with Gibson:
I think a big underlying factor that really needs to be addressed, and our society needs to start being educated on, is there is this devaluation and misunderstanding of consent, especially when we’re talking about digital privacy. Content that is initially made in a consensual context, which is then distributed in a non-consensual context digitally, is a crime. Just because someone consented to share something in one particular context doesn’t mean that it is or should be fair game for the whole world to see.
Choosing to share content, online or in whatever medium, with select people with the understanding that it will disappear and can only be seen by those present at the time — when we’re talking live streaming, webcamming and Skype — that is a far cry from consenting for that content to be recorded and then broadly disseminated. And there is case law precedent confirming this.
The rise of platforms allowing women to make easy money selling pornography is a strange thing for many reasons but Gibson highlights one of them. In the strictest sense, she’s right. The charging of a fee for a video chat or site membership does not entitle customers to redistribute the content in violation of whatever terms were agreed to as a condition for access.
Gibson’s solicitation of tips from whomever was in her online chat at a given moment in time was certainly did not constitute consent to record her activities and distribute them freely for the world to see. If nothing else, because it devalues her ability to sell similar content if she’s competing with stolen “free” versions.
At the some time, the Internet has been a thing for a very long time now. I’m constantly shocked that people are shocked that their “private” OnlyFans accounts and the like are discovered by people they known and that this has repercussions for their families, co-workers and the like.
In an ideal world, I suppose, we would simply accept that the lure of easy money fueled by the seemingly insatiable appetite for online porn means that a whole lot of young women are going to cash in. Eventually, maybe the stigma from doing so will disappear. Indeed, Gibson barely lost her race even after this scandal broke.
It’s hard to have any sympathy for the woman. She chose to run for public office knowing that stuff was out there. Are there people who really believe stuff they put online is still somehow magically “private”?
In related news, the cops have video from state Republican Committee chair Zeigler’s cell phone of the sexual encounter the other party charged was rape. The details may make it harder to support a rape charge, but it’s hard to believe, even in the modern Republican Party, this will redound to his, or his Moms for Liberty wife’s, benefit.
When reliable and reasonably convenient birth control became a thing, it was obvious there would be an effect on mores. Online sexual content is also having a big effect. We are headed into some strange territory.
My favorite line:
Thank god that was explained, I don’t see how anyone would have figured it out otherwise.
This is an issue that will fade as the young move up. Everyone will have something on-line they later find humiliating. It will become commonplace and mostly be ignored.
@Michael Reynolds: That struck me as well. Who read that and then said, “Oh! So that’s what it means!”
@Michael Reynolds: @Steven L. Taylor:
“Ah, but the servant waits, while the master baits.” — Empress Nympho
It doesn’t stop there, an R’s congressman outed his daughter for her Only Fans account before a disgruntled former aid did.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/08/brandon-williams-interview-video-former-aides-00130713
I agree w/@Michael Reynolds:, like past marijuana use, the number of people with incriminating evidence of past actions will be so common that it will be ignored. Puritanism will always be a receding tide.
I’m not so sure about your legal evaluation. In Bollea v. Gawker, the sex was videotaped by a third party and published without Terry Bollea (aka Hulk Hogan) knowing or consenting. Hogan won that case in a judgement that blew up Gawker Media.
I’m sure the Post reporters knew about this and it wasn’t just good taste that kept them from publishing an excerpt.
Nevertheless, there were violations of law and of terms of service here, and they weren’t done by Gibson.
Judging from similar reactions to Lauren Boebert, America isn’t quite ready for public officials to have public sex lives.
What this fails to mention is the Gop sent sexually explicit mailers of this to the district. In envelopes that just said18+ sexually explicit.
https://www.axios.com/local/richmond/2023/10/24/virginia-republicans-send-mail-ad-susanna-gibson-explicit
@Jay L Gischer:
Interesting turn of phrase there. I am perfectly comfortable with my public officials having sex lives. I’m less comfortable with my public officials having sex in public, let alone charging while others watch. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
@James Joyner:
I think that’s what Jay meant by “public sex lives,” i.e. sex in public.
The Politico interview is completely softball. Why not ask her how much money she made for her videos? And I do have to laugh at her claim it’s an invasion of her privacy; she was the dope who put the video camera in her bedroom and linked it up to the internet. She tries to obfuscate by saying that 90% of millennial women have had nude photographs taken; I’m guessing that the percentage who did it for money is quite a bit lower.
@CSK:
Yes. This.
I must be showing my age, because I have little sympathy for this woman. Technically what was done with her videos was illegal….but did she have to make it so easy?
Moral of the story: digital videos, once they’re constructed, will show up everywhere. Even if you get pinky-promise swears from the other party involved that “it’s just for my own use, I swear!”
…and as for streamed material going out over the internet where the only barrier to recording is a “you’re not supposed to copy/save that” clause in a social media sign-up contract? Right. I’m sure everyone will adhere to that….
@Grumpy realist: There are things that a streaming site can do to prevent screen capture. Nvidia’s geforce experience’s video/audio capture software can be disabled by websites. I discovered this when I loaded spotify and noticed I couldn’t record my game play footage anymore. I’m pretty sure that’s something Nvidia snuck in a while back in one of their updates.
I haven’t tried OBS because frankly I don’t care much outside of Nvidia disabling a feature on my computer without my consent. There’s also some direct capture hardware based options too. I’m pretty sure the amateur sexcam sites don’t care enough to bother. It’d cost them money to implement and it’d require a support staff to keep workarounds plugged.
It’s not “easy money”. It is highly competitive. There are subreddits and other fora for online sex workers to trade advice, because it’s not as easy as hooking up a webcam and taking your clothes off.
I doubt you meant to devalue it in that way. You admitted that you don’t have interest in viewing such things. If that is the case, it probably would have been best to avoid making such a judgment.
Morover, this isn’t the first time that the RW has decided to use such things against people. The worst example was when a healthcare worker was outed as having an Onlyfans by the New York Post. This is a different context, sure. But there are other ways to look at it.
One of the problems with our political culture is that we treat this shit as being all in the game.
I just got around to reading the comments.
I’m surprised and disappointed in some of you.
First of all, camsites and the phrase “sex in public” is an obvious conflation. This was not a case of her getting caught on a street corner in flagrante delecto, which would be a crime in most jurisdictions. She legally participated in pornography for money.
Second, let me know when such an act has any impact on whether she can make decisions on legislation.
All of you should grow the fuck up.
@James Joyner:
One does it at Beetlejuice for free, while the other does it on an adult web site for money.
The latter seems a lot more respectful of other people. There’s a difference between “in public” and “publicly available”
The technology is so pervasive that we’ll evolve into a world where everybody’s naughty bits are available for viewing or people will learn to keep their personal stuff off any media. The snake in the form of Steve Jobs gave us an Apple. I originally thought that the name was intended to evoke the Beatles, but it is an echo of Genesis chapter three.
@Kurtz:
I can’t think of any sense of the word ‘public’ that does not apply to performances (of any kind) in front of an audience that one did not personally select. That’s not a moral judgment; it’s just what the word ‘public’ means.
While she is not in my district and I would have voted for her anyway, I am more concerned by the lack of foresight and judgment than I am by the public performance. James, obviously, has a different take. As did many of the potential voters in her district, apparently — which was predictable. (See “lack of foresight and judgment” above.)
@DrDaveT:
Traditional porn distribution doesn’t select their audience either. Secondly, a cam performer can ban individuals from their room. Beyond that, Google the phrase “sex in public porn” and you will not find many hits of camgirls doing a show from a private setting. However, you may find camshows that broadcast from a public setting.
Now, there is the hashtag #publicshow. But that is in a similar sense of a public golf course vs. a private one. It doesn’t require people to pay to watch the show. They can, however, be kicked out of the room.
My issue is that she wasn’t banging a dude in the middle of times square, she was providing a service to people who seek that service. And that service is not illegal. Isn’t that what market economies are supposed to do?
Foresight, I can concede to you. Those saying she shouldn’t be surprised that there are recordings of her performance are correct. And she probably should have looked into it prior to running for office. But maybe she doesn’t give a shit whether the whole world has seen her having sex. Some people don’t. Indeed, for some people exhibitionism is an aphrodisiac on its own.
Gaetz’s sexcipades are documented, and there is video of Boebert engaging in risqué acts in a public setting while she is holding office. Let’s not forget the yearbook writings of a certain Associate Justice of the Supreme Court that point to some wild sexual experiences during his high school days.
Appealing to the voters of her district only works from the perspective of candidate assessment in a party strategy sense. My point was that at the end of the day, accusing her of showing a lack of judgment for this is unfair because being a sex worker does not imply anything about one’s ability to carry out the duties of a legislator. And appealing to the voters of her district says much more about a generation gap and what the American electorate cares about than it does anything about the candidate.
Did she make a mistake? Sure. But everybody does that. The question should be whether that mistake raises questions about the ability to maintain the trust of the public. Being a sex worker doesn’t. To quote Jim Garrison in JFK, “I never understood why the fact that a woman is a prostitute means she has poor eyesight.”
It isn’t hard to find examples of highly intelligent performers. Read an interview with Sasha Grey or look up Valentina Nappi. The latter wrote a regular column in an Italian Leftist magazine and both can probably run circles around a good chunk of our elected officials in conversations about intellectual topics.
We should probably stop helping the GOP when they pull this shit. The biggest difference between this candidate and the three specific examples I mentioned is the letter by their names, not their behavior.
Seriously, we need to stop doing the work for them. And we can start by defending this candidate.
@Kurtz:
And my point was that a lot of voters disagree with you about that, and whether or not they are wrong about that is irrelevant to getting elected.
You seem to be having trouble distinguishing between “this reaction was predictable” and “this reaction was justified”. I have not said anything to imply the latter.
By all means, let us educate the world better, so that they don’t think about sex workers the way they currently do. In the meantime, don’t be dumb and careless about your sex work if you want to run for public office.
@DrDaveT:
No. My response is clear on that.
But I will admit that I jumped on your use of the word “judgment” a little too quickly. I should have asked for a clarification rather than responded how I did. I thought it was clear that I was arguing from a specific point of view. My fault.
@Kurtz:
Ha. You just noticing the some of the outdated and out-of-touch sensibilities round these parts?
It’s hilarious some people will slam “moralism” in matters of life and death, but then suddenly get Puritanical and pull out the fainting couches re: sex and porn. Stereotypically American tho. We have never been good at being outraged about the right things — glad this is changing with the rising generations.