legal argument her lawyer is making kinda requires suspending one's moral judgement of the content's adult nature...

Because the case law cited (i.e. the 2021 apellate court ruling mentioned in the article), that established "consent to being seen is not the same as consent to being recorded," is pretty damning before even taking into account the revenge porn statute in VA that explicitly states disseminating such content without authorization is a Class 1 misdemeanor. I'm thinking your and Buddy's arguments would probably be stronger if whoever disseminated the content had done so by simply publicizing direct links to her Chaturbate profile.

That said... to me, what actually seems hardest to prove is who specifically recorded and disseminated her content and their intent for doing so. I mean, it's possible multiple parties were involved in the recording and dissemination (e.g. the article describes how over a dozen recordings were uploaded to at least that one third-party site in the month following her candidacy announcement)... so even if there's a way for her legal team to obtain ip addresses and trace things that way, how could they distinguish between some horny teen sharing milf porn with their friends online in some forum v. a political operative disseminating with the malicious intent to "coerce, harass, or intimidate" her...?? It's like, the logistics of streamed adult content consumption fragments the tort or something. Also, I agree with Buddy's assessment that Chaturbate's T&Cs could complicate things.



>
>It's a nice try to run that legal mumbo jumbo but the reality
>is she freely streamed content on the internet.
>
>Someone recording it and releasing it isn't a violation of
>privacy.
>
>It's not like someone cracked a password or hacked a site.
>
>she just got caught out there being who she is.. or was..
>
>own that shit.
>
>
>I seriously doubt they will try to take this to court because
>that case would be weak af and keep this in the news longer
>than they would want. Maybe if she wins she moves forward on
>it but at that point it would show it wasn't a difference
>maker.