…I don’t know. What do you think?
Like others have said, it’s not clear what you are confused about, although I think I have an inkling. I’ll come back to that in a minute.
In the case of Jennifer Lawrence and the other stolen images recently in the news, the images were hacked. The people in question did not choose to share them. Society views them as the victims of a crime.
In Weiner’s case, he shared (and had been sharing) a sexual image. News of that became public. His career was ruined, not because of the image, but because he essentially cheated on his wife, repeatedly, lied about it, and people felt he lacked the moral character to represent them in office. He made choices (he was the actor, not the acted upon). He was not the victim, in the eyes of society.
The unpleasant place I think you were going is that these incidents are being treated differently because Weiner has a weiner - sexism of some kind. I disagree. It seems most people do. If JLaw’s pics were out there because she had shared them indiscriminately, and an ex sold them or something, I think the situation would be different. That’s not what happened, so JLaw = victim of crime and Weiner = idiot who should have kept his pants zipped and his phone off.
You don’t know? Someone deliberately solicits sexts, then sends them out to the wider world to shame and disgrace the sender, and you don’t know? Says a lot right there.
First, I specifically mentioned Hilton in the OP. It’s weird though that you mention those two as an example of there not being a violation of the law given they were both initially said to have been stolen according to the people involved. I personally think the reason people don’t empathize with Hilton or Kardashian is because they are considered “whores”.
The outrage is not predicated on those (minor) differences though.
I believe I have done that, but let’s just look at some more commentary on the Lawrence case, and you tell me how that doesn’t apply to Weiner’s case.
Aside from the obvious references to women (and maybe the sexual gratification), all those concerns apply to Weiner’s case.
Weiner didn’t chose to share those photos either.
By that logic, so did Lawrence and the others. Those photos were sent and viewed by other people in all likelihood.
Sure, you can frame it that way if you want. The reality is that polls at the time made it seem as if his constituents didn’t want him to resign. The lying is immaterial, just as it is with the gymnast who had her pics leaked. Why is a man sending a women pics indicative of his “lack of moral character” while a woman doing the same a victim? It wasn’t because he “cheated” on his wife, but because he became a joke due to the fact you could google his name and see his penis. Why is that an okay outcome?
It’s partly sexism, but also just who society decides is worthy of empathy. Gender plays a large role in that. A man getting raped in jail is the subject of many comedies and jokes and opposite wouldn’t be. I get the history behind that. But there is also, IMO, the matter of people like Kardashian and Hilton who don’t get any empathy because they are written of as undeserving of what they have. Hell, Hilton had her house burglarized several times by people using her social media to avoid detection, and Hollywood decided to make a fairly light-hearted movie out of it. I cannot imagine that being fodder for a movie if it were someone people generally respected.
As to why Hilton and Kardashain are so easily written off. I think reality star aspect has something to do with it. I also think it partly a broader issue of people being annoyed that people are getting undeserved sexual gratification from the Lawrence photos whereas the Hilton tape was essentially packaged after the fact for those purposes. Either way, society shouldn’t impose a litmus test on who is deserving of empathy in situations. On the merits, both cases involves a complete breach of privacy and civility, so treating one person as a victim and the other as a creep makes little sense.
Yes, he did. He willingly sent it to others with whom he had no more than a casual relationship. And apparently he sent them to at least one wrong person, unsolicited.
No, not at all. In Mary Elizabeth Winstead’s case she claims she took her leaked photos with her husband and deleted them years ago. She didn’t send them to anyone. But they were stored, perhaps through an oversight on her part, and subsequently stolen.
To make an analogy in Wiener’s case it was the equivalent of you sending nude polaroids to half dozen women you were flirting with and having one of them who didn’t appreciate receiving it burn you with the authorities. In Winstead’s case it is like someone broke into her home, rifled through her dresser for some nudes she took with her husband and sent copies to every person in the phone book.
We don’t know if Jennifer Lawrence or any of the rest sent their pictures to anyone - a couple may have just took them for themselves while clowning around, others like MEW while their significant others were present and involved - no sending of anything. But it makes little difference either way. Whoever might have received them presumably weren’t offended and didn’t complain about it unlike in Wiener’s case. Instead somebody those women didn’t intend to see them broke into their files and stole them.
These are just not comparable events other than the fact that they both involve nude photos.
Snip
Mentioned up thread, but worth repeating: one of these situations is being investigated as a crime. There is more complexity here than just an arbitrary worthiness test.
On the question of Weiner, I went and re-read the history there to make sure I wasn’t mis-remembering the sexual misadventure in question. He posted publicly a sexual picture, likely accidentally, but he did it. Details of other women came out after his repeated denials. I stated earlier that his career disintegrated in part over “lying”. To be clear, the picture was merely the vehicle that exposed the rest of the rot. It was the least of his problems. You may believe that the picture alone led to his fall. I think that’s extremely naive. If it had truly been one picture, not liaisons of some sort with at least 6 women, he would have held his seat.
It may or may not be true that reality stars are less empathetic figures than Academy Award-winning actresses. It probably depends on the individuals involved. It’s also irrelevant here.
Yes, but did he send them to TMZ or Breitbart? The issue isn’t who he sent them to but whether he has he right to prevent others from seeing them. Why does he sacrifice that right when Kate Upton doesn’t?
She essentially sent them to Apple. Besides, the comment was about whether the pic being shared with others precluded one from deciding who gets to view them. Even in MEW’s case she shared them with another person. If we found out tomorrow that her husband leaked the pics on purpose, would that make her less of a victim?
But that is not what happened with Weiner in the majority of cases reported. I don’t even recall reading that happening at all, but my memory may be off. He wasn’t just sending unsolicited pics to casual strangers. These were consensual relationships where pics and comments often went back and forth. Regardless, if the issue is that people shouldn’t view these photos because they were not intended for public consumption, and because viewing them represents a clear and demonstrable harm to the victim, why does it matter if they were stolen by a hacker or released by a sexting partner? Clearly Anthony Weiner doesn’t want you to see his penis just as Jennifer Lawrence doesn’t want you to see her vagina. Why shouldn’t his wishes be given the same weight?
That’s not what revenge porn is.
But continue with the mansplaining, bro.
Your comment here is utterly moronic.
He did in fact share them with TMZ. He posted a picture of his dick on his twitter feed and TMZ reporters were among his followers.
That’s why he got nailed.
Kate Upton did not put nude photos of herself on her twitter feed.
If she had, you’d have a point, but she didn’t, so you don’t.
The first Wiener photo was posted on a public forum. The second released was cropped and showed only his shirtless torso. I absolutely agree with you that the nude ones should not have been shared by the media- simply knowing they exist is informative enough without having to see the explicit parts.
Of course , the reason why Wierner isn’t seen as a victim is that we generally see taking a nude selfie for private consumption as a normal and healthy thing to do, while we see married adults in positions of public power sharing explicit chats and pics with a wide selection of young targets as being a sign of poor judgement-- and poor judgement is a lot more worrying in a politician than an entertainer.
…I’m interested in your opinion. Indulge us. Or not. That tells us a lot about you as well. What word do you want to use to describe her? You can tell us. I promise not to let everyone know.
…there was speculation at the time the videos were intentionally leaked, and the police did not get involved. They both still profit off the tapes. No-one has been arrested.
The Hilton and the Kardashian cases are similar to the Wiener case and the public reaction was the same. All three of these cases are very different to what happened to Jennifer Lawrence and co.
They aren’t minor differences though. Completely different things happen.
Okay lets then.
Weiner released these images. There was no written contract with the people he distributed those images to not to release those images. In fact, is there any evidence he told them not to share them at all?
None of those references apply to Weiner. If Weiner sent a picture of his dick to me I wouldn’t hesitate to share it with everyone. I didn’t ask to see his dick. I don’t want to see his dick. He’s sending me his dick for his own sexual gratification and not mine: and I consider that rude. I wouldn’t hesitate to respond in kind.
And that is the difference. And it isn’t a minor difference. Its a pretty fricken major one. To get the nude pics of Jennifer I would have to hack into a website and steal the images from her private galleries. To get a dick picture from Weiner I simply have to wait for him to send it to me.
Weiner mistakenly posted the pics on his twitter feed. It was not a breach of trust that broke the story.
Sorry, I just don’t see them as being similar at all.
I actually would agree that some of the people involved in the Weiner case were creeps for sharing private messages in public; I find that highly distasteful. In cases where the dick pics were not sent unsolicited (and some were not) they should have remained private. In cases were they were unsolicited, well, too bad, Tony.
But in the case of Ms. Lawrence, Winstead, Upton et al., there was never any intent for the pictures to be transmitted to external parties at all. The act of hacking them was clearly criminal and extraordinarily immoral.
A simple analogy would be if instead of digital pictures, the people involved were taking Polaroids of themselves naked. Suppose Anthony Weiner then started passing out his Polaroids to women at the office. A few of them asked him for them, but some did not. Then Weiner accidentally leaves one at a Starbucks. All hell breaks loose.
The following week, someone waits outside Jennifer Lawrence’s house until she leaves to go to the store. Then he burgles the house and steals her Polaroids and posts them online.
Is there any comparison? Jesus, I don’t think so.
Exactly. Once you send me a picture of your dick, that picture is mine, and I can share it with whomever I want.
That is the “generic” you, btw. 
Revenge porn is grossly violative. The Weiner ladies who did that were creeps.
The celebrity thing is something different.
:: ZIPS UP ::
…gives John Mace evil stare…
Ms. Lawrence probably did send her pictures to someone (presumably her boyfriend)-- She took them for a reason, after all. So at that point, the set of people authorized to have those pictures consisted of her and her boyfriend. Then, it appears, someone who was not authorized to have those pictures managed to get hold of them, and shared them widely.
Mr. Wiener certainly sent his pictures to someone, in fact several someones. At that point, the set of people authorized to have those pictures consisted of Mr. Wiener and all of his many electronic correspondents. Then, one of those people who was authorized to have those pictures shared them widely.
If someone you did not allow to have your pictures shared them, then you’re a victim. If someone who did allow to have your pictures shared them, then you should have exercised better judgement as to whom you allowed to have them.
One more vote, for apples and oranges…not comparable.
In the Weiner case, at least some of the sext recipients breached his implicit trust and unethically shared the photos. In the iCloud case, (we think) the hackers unethically recovered and shared the photos. The OP’s question is why we treat the two victims of unethical conduct differently. It’s a perfectly fair question.
And the answers are that Weiner was more reckless than the celebrities in creating the circumstances for the ethical breach; that there probably was no crime committed in the Weiner case; and that Weiner was assumed to be engaged in something most people consider immoral (adultery, although we don’t really know if this was out of bounds in their relationship) whereas the celebrities were not.
That explains a lot of the disparate reaction. But I disagree with those who say Weiner was no kind of victim. When you share a naked photo with someone, the implicit agreement is that they will not send it to the media. At least as to those photos that were not unsolicited, he was the victim of a rather significant breach of trust. Negating that because wasn’t careful enough, or because you consider him immoral because of his sexual ethics is a pretty nasty road to walk, for reasons I assume are obvious.