wrt proving the 'who' and 'intent' is perhaps her legal team will try getting the Washington Post to disclose the source/operative who disseminated her content to them??

Because with that strategy, even if multiple users have unlawfully recorded and disseminated her content, her legal team might be able to make the strongest case for malicious intent against the specific user/operative who disseminated the content to the Washington Post... The argument being that even if other users also unlawfully recorded and disseminated her content, the overwhelming majority of users (on Chaturbate or elsewhere) who consume streamed adult content simply use it to masturbate or whatever and do not record and disseminate what they watched to a major news outlet.

However I just double-checked and, ya, journalists are protected by the 1st Amendment from being forced to reveal sources in court proceedings. So she's still stuck lol.




>
>The "who" is almost certainly hidden by VPNs and what not--
>and, to the earlier point, they hid their identity for a
>reason. Because they didn't want to be held liable in a court
>of law, lol.
>
>I think if you found out the "who" somehow, it could open
>doors to the latter argument. Like, you're right that if they
>paid some teenager cash to do it, it'd be basically impossible
>to prove... but sometimes these people are morons. And if
>someone who works as an intern for the opp is the one that did
>it or whatever? Open and shut court case imo.