the hell?

Dem candidate has videos of her performing sex acts for tokens on website with her husband.

How the fuck do you do this and then decide to run for public office?

https://apnews.com/article/susanna-gibson-virginia-house-of-delegates-sex-acts-9e0fa844a3ba176f79109f7393073454

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

----------------------------------------

"Fuck aliens." © WarriorPoet415

I was bothered when that dem congresswoman in cali resigned after details of her having a threesome came out

glad to see this woman be like fuck that

>I was bothered when that dem congresswoman in cali resigned
>after details of her having a threesome came out
>
>glad to see this woman be like fuck that

----------------------------------------

"Fuck aliens." © WarriorPoet415

the fuck is wrong with yall?

this is a terrible look for a candidate.

Yall can watch me pee if you tip me and some tokens - again, I'm raising money for a good cause.'

At another, Gibson explains she is in an open relationship with her husband even though he 'doesn't like sharing.'

'Yeah I f*** random strangers if you're hot,' she says.


nigga

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

----------------------------------------

"Fuck aliens." © WarriorPoet415

If the good folks of VA see all this and still want her, more power to her.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

lmao

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

>How the fuck do you do this and then decide to run for public
>office?

The right question might be "What politician won't have a video like this somewhere?"

That's the way things are going - this is much more common and people are much less ashamed.

See the past for: divorcees, single mothers, homosexuality, etc.

------------


Gone: My Discogs collection for The Roots:
http://www.discogs.com/user/tomhayes-roots/collection

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

and i'd ask the same for a Republican candidate

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fg6JzoCEWx8

Because the candidate makes it sounds like leaking private sex tape but the description sounds like porn.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

The candidate said the recordings are an unlawful invasion of privacy. Which is true.

As the article helpfully explains, "Watkins cited a 2021 Virginia Court of Appeals ruling that found it was unlawful for a man to secretly record his girlfriend during a consensual sexual encounter even if he did not show the video to other people. The court found that consent to being seen is not the same as consent to being recorded."

You can say, "Well, if she's live online, she's gotta know some creep might record her!" Sure. But that also doesn't make any of what she said any less true. And the timing of the release makes it clear that there's foundation for a revenge porn case against the person who leaked these videos.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

the tape of her having sex to the public? Come on bro. If it's an invasion of privacy, then the tapes are private.

Also they cited a case about the non-consenual taping of sex between a couple. That's not exactly on point for a case involving a third party releasing, or rather publicizing, previously recorded porn.

Sounds like she is trying to characterize this as revenge porn and I think that may be misleading. If she uploaded content to the site, left it there and someone recognized her as a politician and made that fact well known, well I think the voting public has a right to know that the politician they are considering has done or does porn.

I looked at the VA revenge porn statute and I don't think this qualifies (mainly because the release can be protected as a public's right to know and not just malicious and the release may not be considered unauthorized under the T&Cs of the website).

I think if the facts were she was doing a private live show and the viewer who paid for that private live show secretly recorded it and then released it to the public MAYBE she has a case of something, but I still think the public has a right to know that a person running for office is still doing private sex live shows.


Listen if we think its the public's right to know that Donald trump was paying of a porn star to keep silent about their affair, I think the public has the right to know that someone running for office was doing live sex shows that could subject her to blackmail.

Also, maybe there are facts I am missing, but I think she is being slick characterizing this as revenge porn.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

that were made publicly and put online by her and her husband.

nah.. this isn’t revenge porn. Its just porn.

she didn’t lose her phone or have her laptop stolen.

She chose to do this stuff and had no shame asking for money to do it.

She aint a victim, she just a freak.

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

> If she uploaded content
>to the site, left it there and someone recognized her as a
>politician and made that fact well known

Someone recorded the content and uploaded the content onto a third-party site. You can't just download a video from one of these streaming sites. You have to rip it or record it. And that's illegal.

>well I think the
>voting public has a right to know that the politician they are
>considering has done or does porn.

That part of it's fine. If people want to talk about that fact, totally fine. But that doesn't change that whoever posted her streams onto a third-party site did something illegal, and the timing of said release certainly makes a case that the leak was done with the intent to humiliate or intimidate.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

that has 5,700 followers.

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.

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

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.

>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.

If they had done that, that's one thing. But they didn't. They recorded something the couple had posted and reposted it on a third-party site. And by doing so, they broke the law. Very simple.

Like, when people download some new album or torrent a TV show, people do that shit all the time without thinking-- it doesn't make it not against the law. Just because creeps undoubtedly record streams like these all the time doesn't mean it's cool in the eyes of the law to do so.

>to me, what actually seems hardest to prove is who specifically recorded and disseminated her content and their intent for doing so.

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.

Also, without looking at the Chaturbate T&C, I'd be STUNNED if there wasn't an explicit mention of "you are not allowed to record, you are not allowed to repost, Chaturbate is not legally responsible if you violate the law here."

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

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.

this doesn't fall under the VA revenge porn statute. It's not meant to. This isn't revenge porn. Yall think it's dirty politics but it's also newsworthy that a politician is doing porn. Voters have a right to know.

The wilder part, the part that surprised me, is that this doesn't even seem to be a violation of the Terms of Use of the website. See this line right here:

"When you broadcast or upload Community Member Content to the Platform, you hereby grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicensable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, and perform the Community Member Content in connection with delivering the Platform and for marketing and advertising the availability of the Platform in any media format we choose. You also expressly provide that each Community Member shall have a license to use the Community Member Content under the terms of Section III(c) of these Terms."

The T&Cs give the website a broad license to use submitted content and then seems to gives those broad rights to other users. I think this is just bad drafting (there is not Section III(c) and they don't mean for it to read this way, but it does read like there is, arguably, a broad right by other users to use the content on the site.

Then hereis also this:

"Public Information/Caution in Sharing Information. As noted in our Privacy Policy, all information and/or content you choose to post and/or share through your profile on the Platform, through chat (including private chat or "direct message"), and all content you stream or otherwise share through the Platform is considered public information. You agree to limit the information you share through the Platform keeping in mind we cannot control the use of such information by those with whom you share your information."


That's killer if someone is trying to argue that the content is private.


I could be wrong or missing something, I think I need to spend ALOT more time on the website to be certain I caught it all.




**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

court of public opinion? Sure..

but how can anyone think this isn revenge porn when they freely uploaded this to a public site that doesn’t even have a password protecting the content?

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

The political damage will be done well before any legal proceedings and, unless they can find a rich/powerful villain to pin this on, there isn’t much value to pursuing it.

<-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><->
<-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><->

Looking at the statute again (linking here so we don't have to keep going back to the article lol: https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter8/section18.2-386.2/ ), most of its language is spent describing the nature of content that's unlawful to dissminate or sell. The only allusion to how private the content needs to be is if the disseminator/seller "knows or has reason to know that he is not licensed or authorized to disseminate or sell such videographic or still image."

And taking that into account, in Section V(c) Chaturbate's T&Cs states pretty clearly that users:

"are granted a limited, non-exclusive, revokable license to access and use the Platform for your own personal enjoyment. You may not, download, reproduce, sell, rent, perform, or link to any content made available through the Platform, except as expressly permitted by the Community Member and/or Independent Broadcaster, as appropriate, responsible for such content or otherwise as permitted by the rules of the Platform."

So the Chaturbate's T&Cs do appear to reinforce the VA statute...

When I first read the "Public Information/Caution in Sharing Information" clause you're quoting from Section V(k) I thought that might complicate things too. But after reflecting a bit more, I still believe that would've been most helpful to the disseminator if all they'd done was publicize the link to her Chaturbate profile. Because in that case, there would've been no "recording", no "dissemination", no "creating, adapting, or modifying" etc and it would be more difficult for this woman's lawyer to cite the case and statutory laws in question. "Linking" to the content is only explicitly prohibited in the Chaturbate T&Cs, so the debate would've instead been whether they violated the Chaturbate rules (for which we can at least agree that the possible consequences would be much milder lol).

>Someone recording it and releasing it isn't a violation of privacy.

You can say "but if you post it, people are gonna record it!" all you want. I'm not even saying that's factually inaccurate. I am saying-- and this article is saying-- that it's a clear violation of the law to record someone's stream and post it elsewhere without their consent.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

I think it's okay to say that you don't think she should be slut shamed or her personal business shouldn't affect her public career. I think folks would disagree with you and that's about that.

But it seems like you are beating around the bush by being overly concerned about copyright infringement or breaching the terms of use of the website.

Like do you think if a Donald Trump pee tape because available he should be able to shut it down because it infringes his copyright in the tape?

Again, there is a fair use argument that this is newsworthy.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

I don't think I'm being terribly ambiguous about this. If you're going to record someone, you get their consent. If you're going to take someone else's recording, you get their consent.

If I record your IG story and post it elsewhere without your consent, that should be against the law. If I screenshot your Facebook photos and post them on a third-party site, that should be against the law. And if I record your livestream video and post it elsewhere, so you can no longer decide which of your videos is live on the internet and which are not, that should be against the law. All of these things are fucked up and creepy, they shouldn't be allowed by law, and they aren't allowed by law.

As I said above, I think the *news* that she did this is fine to report. And if some news organization had posted these videos on their website under the umbrella of "this is newsworthy," I think it would have presented a very interesting legal case. But that's not what happened here, obviously.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

maybe what you are saying is legit but I think if this was Boebert or MTG we wouldn’t be talking about copyright laws.

If what buddy posted on their site is true, I think its too muddy to win a lawsuit since this was streamed on a public site.

but I’m clearly not a lawyer so what do I know

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

>maybe what you are saying is legit but I think if this was
>Boebert or MTG we wouldn’t be talking about copyright laws.

I think if left wing people were gleefully reposting nude images posted by Boebert, that would obviously set an ugly precedent. Certainly people are frequently hypocritical when it comes to treating politicians on the opposite side of the aisle, but I do not believe, if Boebert had decided to live stream herself nude in the past, that it would make the leaking of those videos lawful or morally right.

I'm obviously not above enjoying the misery of a politician I hate, but all day on Twitter I see people laughing when someone on the other side gets fucked up over something and then pivoting to "here's why this doesn't matter" when it's their person. Like... an issue matters or it doesn't! So, for me personally, this issue matters.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

and tweets uploaded to twitter on other sites unlawful?

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

Copyright law should not be a means to suppress a news story. And it isn't. You say this:

" If I screenshot your Facebook photos and post them on a third-party site, that should be against the law. And if I record your livestream video and post it elsewhere, so you can no longer decide which of your videos is live on the internet and which are not, that should be against the law. All of these things are fucked up and creepy, they shouldn't be allowed by law, and they aren't allowed by law."


But that's not accurate. There is a big exception in copyright law in fair use and newsworthiness is a type of fair use.

Meaning, if a politician makes a racist post on facebook, they can't block us from reposting it by arguing it violates their copyright.

If there is a trump pee tape, then trump can't bar the news from releasing it our publishing it.

This instance is a lot less ambiguous then a DOnald Trump Pee tape because she agreed to upload the video* to a website that explicitly states in its terms and conditions its a public site and have other T&Cs that aren't helpful in blocking the release of the video.


Anyway, the horse has been beaten dead.

*as a technical matter, it sounds like you are assuming someone secretly recorded her live stream when it seems more likely she uploaded the video and someone else downloaded the video from the site.







>I don't think I'm being terribly ambiguous about this. If
>you're going to record someone, you get their consent. If
>you're going to take someone else's recording, you get their
>consent.
>
>If I record your IG story and post it elsewhere without your
>consent, that should be against the law. If I screenshot your
>Facebook photos and post them on a third-party site, that
>should be against the law. And if I record your livestream
>video and post it elsewhere, so you can no longer decide which
>of your videos is live on the internet and which are not, that
>should be against the law. All of these things are fucked up
>and creepy, they shouldn't be allowed by law, and they aren't
>allowed by law.
>
>As I said above, I think the *news* that she did this is fine
>to report. And if some news organization had posted these
>videos on their website under the umbrella of "this is
>newsworthy," I think it would have presented a very
>interesting legal case. But that's not what happened here,
>obviously.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

are breaking the law?

I think because its sex acts people think its different but this is content just like videos with people saying racist shit or wilding out in public.

Once you stream it publicly I don't see how you own that content and its a violation of your privacy.

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

No need to continue to go round and round. We disagree on this issue.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

Paragraph A of the VA revenge porn statute her lawyer cited is quite explicit on this:


"§ 18.2-386.2. Unlawful dissemination or sale of images of another; penalty.

A. Any person who, with the intent to coerce, harass, or intimidate, maliciously disseminates or sells any videographic or still image created by any means whatsoever that depicts another person who is totally nude, or in a state of undress so as to expose the genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast, where such person knows or has reason to know that he is not licensed or authorized to disseminate or sell such videographic or still image is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. For purposes of this subsection, "another person" includes a person whose image was used in creating, adapting, or modifying a videographic or still image with the intent to depict an actual person and who is recognizable as an actual person by the person's face, likeness, or other distinguishing characteristic."


I'm not sure I follow your and Legs' comparison to disseminating everyday news videos and images (and whatever fair use exceptions apply in certain instances of public interest/newsworthiness), if the overwhelming majority of reposted/retweeted news and gossip content isn't pornographic. It's kinda apples and oranges, no?



>I think it's okay to say that you don't think she should be
>slut shamed or her personal business shouldn't affect her
>public career. I think folks would disagree with you and
>that's about that.
>

Ya you've mentioned this elsewhere in the post too but I think I'd argue (and FrankLongo may feel differently, I realize I'm interjecting in here lol) that while a public figure's sex life may interest the public (in a "gossip" sense), that doesn't make it public interest (in a "need to know for the common good" sense). I understand why some might feel that way depending on their personal morals, but it's a pretty problematic assumption. For starters, it's just fact that how one has sex has very little to do with how one performs a job. Secondly, it would be next to impossible to ensure fairness across various sexualities, genders, ages, races and ethnicities, etc for disclosing. But even beyond all that, let' say 'Buddy's Law' is enacted somewhere so situations like this never catch constituents offguard again... How should such information even be collected?? An appendix in campaign registration packages where prospective political candidates must list all sex acts, partners, websites/apps, and media they've engaged with over the last x amount of years? Idk... sounds pretty totalitarian.

Any person who, with the intent to coerce, harass, or
intimidate, maliciously disseminates or sells any videographic
or still image created by any means whatsoever....

The statute states the necessary intent (mens rea) is to "coerce, harass, or intimidate, maliciously disseminates or sells...."

I think who ever released this has a very solid defense that they didn't disseminate it for any of these reasons, they disseminated it because the public has a right to know." There is a pretty solid first amendment argument there.

Also, slightly more nuanced, its really hard to argue that someone circulating photos publicly that were already publicly available is done to "coerce, harass, or intimidate". If you release pictures publicly, how is my re-circulating them malicious?

There is no good argument for a boyfriend sharing with the public private images given to them by their girlfriend. And those cases would be easy to prosecute and prove under this statue. That's just not the case here.



The Second part of the statute is that it says " where such person knows or has reason to know that he is not licensed or authorized to disseminate or sell such videographic or still image"

Again, this is surprising element to me because the terms of use of the website could be drafted in such a way that republishing the pictures is a violation of the T&Cs. They are not. The T&Cs do not say its a violation to republish these photos based on the language I posted above its arguable that other users have a right/license to do so. Better drafted T&Cs could have fixed this but as they are written, its hard to argue that whoever published the photos wasn't authorized to release the photos.



>Paragraph A of the VA revenge porn statute her lawyer cited
>is quite explicit on this:
>
>
>"§ 18.2-386.2. Unlawful dissemination or sale of images of
>another; penalty.
>
>A. Any person who, with the intent to coerce, harass, or
>intimidate, maliciously disseminates or sells any videographic
>or still image created by any means whatsoever that depicts
>another person who is totally nude, or in a state of undress
>so as to expose the genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female
>breast, where such person knows or has reason to know that he
>is not licensed or authorized to disseminate or sell such
>videographic or still image is guilty of a Class 1
>misdemeanor. For purposes of this subsection, "another person"
>includes a person whose image was used in creating, adapting,
>or modifying a videographic or still image with the intent to
>depict an actual person and who is recognizable as an actual
>person by the person's face, likeness, or other distinguishing
>characteristic."
>
>
>I'm not sure I follow your and Legs' comparison to
>disseminating everyday news videos and images (and whatever
>fair use exceptions apply in certain instances of public
>interest/newsworthiness), if the overwhelming majority of
>reposted/retweeted news and gossip content isn't pornographic.
>It's kinda apples and oranges, no?
>
>
>
>>I think it's okay to say that you don't think she should be
>>slut shamed or her personal business shouldn't affect her
>>public career. I think folks would disagree with you and
>>that's about that.
>>
>
>Ya you've mentioned this elsewhere in the post too but I think
>I'd argue (and FrankLongo may feel differently, I realize I'm
>interjecting in here lol) that while a public figure's sex
>life may interest the public (in a "gossip" sense), that
>doesn't make it public interest (in a "need to know for the
>common good" sense). I understand why some might feel that way
>depending on their personal morals, but it's a pretty
>problematic assumption. For starters, it's just fact that how
>one has sex has very little to do with how one performs a job.
>Secondly, it would be next to impossible to ensure fairness
>across various sexualities, genders, ages, races and
>ethnicities, etc for disclosing. But even beyond all that,
>let' say 'Buddy's Law' is enacted somewhere so situations like
>this never catch constituents offguard again... How should
>such information even be collected?? An appendix in campaign
>registration packages where prospective political candidates
>must list all sex acts, partners, websites/apps, and media
>they've engaged with over the last x amount of years? Idk...
>sounds pretty totalitarian.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

they posted videos on a site for token and tips “for a good cause”

this isn’t a case of a stolen sex tape.

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

online and then running for public office is some crazy shit.

is it really revenge porn if you freely put your videos online?

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

How is someone pointing out something you streamed voluntarily "revenge pron"

but c'mon,

if I'm not a fan of a candidate and find them on a site begging for money for sex acts its a fucking layup.

IMO I'm amazed at the audacity to run for public office but I guess after Trump and seeing these GOP women not give a fuck she said fuck it (literally)

usually politicians wait until after the win to wild the fuck out with prostitutes and such but this is some new shit.

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

"Get ready....for your blessing....."
"Bury me by my Grand-Grand and when you can come follow me"

my surprise is that it happened so early into the online sex economy

Prolly a gang of white women who fantasize about being this free with their sexuality

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

Also the archdiocese is full of grown folks that rape children yet voters continue to send their kids to their schools and not one govt official has bothered prosecuting or bothering to tear them down cause they are all bought and paid for.

I’m hoping Sen. OnlyFannies turns on the lights and turns them all on their ears.

The lines are blurred between celebrity and public office now...

the lines between the entire spectrum of porn and celebrity are also blurred

so the lines between the entire spectrum of porn and public office are blurred.

Other than looking up her content to service yourself to, why does it actually matter if she is a good candidate?

Anything that helps destroy the terrible puritanical cultural thumb we've been living under in the US I am here for it.

Double 0
DJ/Producer/Artist
Producer in Kidz In The Hall
-------------------------------------------
twitter: @godouble0
IG: @godouble0
www.thinklikearapper.com

I mean, it's not that big of a deal in the VA house but it would be endless fodder for the right if it where the US house.

I mean part of being a good candidate is not being a distraction. There has to be folks equally qualified who aren't porn stars.

I kinda like I keep thinking how is it that John Fetterman was the best that the Dems in PA could come up with?


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"