I can see MTG taking the floor with big augmentation, only to get into a fight with Boebert as to who came up the idea first.
It’s not about people watching the stream. It’s about the fact that they recorded said stream and are now publishing that copy two years later which they did not have the legal right to.
And, yeah, @Dissonance it does to me seem like it legally could be revenge porn. Revenge porn is about releasing videos that were previously recorded in attempt to harm the reputation of the person in question. Just because something was publicly available doesn’t mean you have a right to copy it and disseminate it after the fact. You have the same right to make it public as you would if someone sent you a video of themselves. They clearly don’t own the copyright.
This is obviously Republicans using sex shaming in order to attack a Democratic candidate. It obviously has no bearing on her ability to represent her district. It’s clearly wrong, in the same way that it’s wrong to fire a teacher because people find out she used to be a stripper.
And it only works because they can rely on even their opponents to treat it like a big deal, and join in the fray. That’s why Beau of the Fifth Column’s video on her completely ignores it, and pushes her positions. He’s the one who pointed out that these tactics only work because we buy into them.
And, to be clear, this is different than Boebert because of the venue. They put up this video on a site specifically for this type of content. They weren’t acting up in public–they were acting as sex workers. It’s the difference between you stripping at a school band concert vs. a strip club.
Based on my limited understanding of Virginia law, this does seem to be the case.
I understand the pushback from a moral perspective. If you’re broadcasting yourself having sex to total strangers for money, it’s hard to have a lot of sympathy when you cry about a violation of privacy and being publicly humiliated.
But legally, she might have a good case.
This does loop back to what I was saying earlier though. This moral outrage and shaming people for legally making money via pornography or dating someone while still legally married is a sideshow. I don’t care about what Gibson did in the past to legally make money. I don’t think it will make her a worse representative of her state. Likewise, Boebert’s messy personal life isn’t what I find objectionable about her. The way she’s trying to make our country worse by spreading dangerous propaganda and arguing for bad policies are what I object to.
This is all starting to feel like the Monica Lewinsky scandal all over again.
The mimbo Boebert was jerking off in the theater owns a bar in Aspen that hosts drag shows.
She trolls the libs, So does MTG.
Most of whom are not legal.
You dont compromise with who you are.
Yes, they seems to ignore most of the word of Paul, and focus on one part:
Do not be deceived: xneither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,2 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
So she pings about 6 of those. But of course being gay is a sin. 
Now sure, Paul did say men having sex with men is wrong. But he also includes drunks, revilers (pretty much the whole GOP), swindlers (trump). the greedy (Most politicians, hell most people) adulterers and other things. All of which are cheerfully ignored by the homophobic.
They dont. But Corinthians does.
Right Wing Populism, which is very popular in the world today, is extremely dangerous, and has led to fascism at least three times. trump, boris, netanyahu, modi, and many others.
Oh, the irony!
But she’s trying to navigate a “public and difficult divorce”……I dunno, maybe in the the law of the mountain west a divorce can’t be finalized until you give a liberal a two-fisted handjob in front of witnesses.
Agreed.
After seeing her video, Boebert is now the type of politician I’d “like to have a beer with.”
But put her anywhere near the levers of power, or in some position of authority?
Oh, hell no.
Yes, the Squeezer Separation Act of '93.
No, it’s not- not as long as they rant on about the evils of homosexuality.
According to the same verse of Pauls that makes gay sex wrong, adultery (and sexual immorality) is just as wrong. So is greed, reviling, and drunkenness.
We need to point out the hypocrisy.
I’m honestly surprised that neither of them has flashed their breasts, and/or mooned a crowd, on live TV no less.
Seriously, if they want to use the Bible as a weapon against others, it’s only fair to call them out on their flaming hypocrisy. Their weaponization and politicization of religion is as dangerous as anything they do.
Exactly.
Due respect – I think you’re ignoring the extreme act of patriotism that was meant to occur in that theater, on that night, with that man, initiated BY that woman.
Think: Raising the US flag over Iwo Jima.
But the Damned Woke Libruls – in a stunning reminder of Just How Much They Hate America – interceded.
It’s fair to criticize her moral failings in light of these kinds of attacks:
But I don’t think what she’s doing would be considered adultery, not unless you’re one of those people who think that you have to stay married for life and divorce is against God. All she’s waiting on is legal paperwork. In any way that a Christian would care about, she has no commitment to her husband. There’s nothing in the Bible about waiting for divorce paperwork to be filed with the government.
Now, it’s pretty freaking hypocritical to date a guy who has hosted drag shows at his bar if that bit is accurate.
Lots of luck with that, it’s not going to happen. You have no expectation of privacy when you are publicly broadcasting yourself having sex for the pleasure of literally anyone who wants to watch it. It’s not ‘revenge porn’ when someone later shares the VOD. The most they could try to sue for is DMCA violation since they can try to claim the copyright to said porn, which is why some streamers on sites like Chaturbate put ‘protected by DMCA’ watermarks, which do all of jack and shit unless the ‘owner’ wants to try to do takedown strikes against the sites that host the recordings, which isn’t worth the legal costs unless the ‘owners’ of said porn are making a great deal of cash distributing said porn themselves and is almost never worth the cost even if they are.
Sites like Chaturbate are archived on multiple sites across the internet while they are being broadcast, DMCA watermark or not. From the article:
Chaturbate videos are streamed live on that site and are often archived on other publicly available sites, the Post reported. More than a dozen videos posted under Gibson’s Chaturbate username were archived on one of those sites — Recurbate — in September 2022, the month after she announced her candidacy. The most recent were two videos archived on Sept. 30, 2022. It is unclear when the livestream occurred.
You can claim revenge porn (which to remind you is criminal, not civil) when your partner publicly releases porn that you had consented to making with the understanding that it was to be kept privately between the two of you (or however many were there at the time of the umm… act). You can’t publicly put on a live sex show where you and your partner will perform specific sex acts once certain token goals have been reached by the public at large tipping you to perform them and then decry that rebroadcast of the public performance is revenge porn. You consented to being publicly watched performing sexual acts in exchange for money, and you are a moron if you didn’t think your public show wasn’t being archived and put up on multiple other sites in real time (not two years later) while you were performing them. That’s the reason for the ‘protected by DMCA’ watermarks, which everyone ignores.
Again, note the absence of any actual legal action by her attorney. They haven’t got a legal leg to stand on in bringing criminal charges, no matter what he blubbers to the press in public, and at best a DMCA case that isn’t worth the cost of filing.
She literally says “I have never had bad rhetoric towards anyone and their personal preference as an adult” and “I’ve criticized men dressing up as caricatures of women” in the same sentence.
So many levels of hypocrisy that don’t even touch adultery. This is a Republicans Congresswoman, who bloviates about child grooming and the sexual deviances of the left, giving a rub-and-tug in the seats of an all-ages theater show.
Nah. That had four males on the pole at one time.
Y’know, y’all are making it… difficult… to stick with the current SDMB values in answers and comments. Og, give me the strength.
But I can’t help but notice how the NY Post has apparently decided that they are going to turn on Boebert. Their site analytics must have told them this is the sort of thing their readers want, no surprise.
And, yeah…
But, OTOH, it makes us wonder, exactly in what timeline of reality are these people living, that they go into electoral politics apparently not expecting that this will (a) become known and (b) be used against them.
I agree with you a thousand percent.