Unlikely commercial ventures for politicians

Sometimes the story is just beyond imagination.  From Virginia Democrat in key state House race calls sharing of pornographic videos an ‘illegal invasion of my privacy’ by Eric Bradner.  I am imagining, from the headline, that the Democrat candidate had made one or more sex tapes for herself and her partner, that the tapes had been stolen and then made public.  Classic dirty tricks politics, even if a bit extreme.  

But no.  That is not what happened.  The reporters are trying to force a modern idiocy into a moral outrage pan.  

The Democratic candidate in a competitive Virginia House district denounced reports that she and her husband had performed sexual acts on a pornographic livestreaming website, describing the sharing of those videos as “the worst gutter politics.”

The existence of the sexually explicit videos, first reported by The Washington Post on Monday, has injected a highly sensitive issue into one of the most competitive races in this fall’s battle for control of the Virginia General Assembly.

She "performed sexual acts on a pornographic livestreaming website?"  OK, this is more complicated than someone breaking in and revealing that which was private.  I read on.  

Gibson, a 40-year-old mother of two young children, and her husband, a lawyer, reportedly streamed sex acts in exchange for “tips” on a livestreaming pornographic website. Those videos were recorded and then archived on another site. The Post reported it had been alerted to the videos’ existence by a Republican operative. CNN has not independently verified the content of the videos.

Oh, no.  That is, beyond being inconceivable, sad.   But it gets worse.

The videos were first livestreamed on a website that is not password-protected and on which The Post reported the couple had more than 5,700 followers. Gibson’s attorney, Daniel P. Watkins, said that sharing the videos violated the state’s revenge porn law.

She and her husband produced livestream porn for tips on a website that was unsecured in any fashion, therefore presumably accessible by children.  The Washington Post found out about the site and published an article about it.

The rest of the story is bog standard.  The imperiled politician is blaming her opponent for dirty tricks even though she produced the porn, for commerce, on an unsecured website which was revealed by the Washington Post.  There is a lot of harrumphing about revenge porn laws and "illegal invasion of my privacy", etc.  For all the political posturing, it sure sounds like there is little to her charges.  

Where do the political parties find these candidates and who is doing any sort of vetting.  This has echoes of the Katie Hill scandal in late 2019.  

Katherine Lauren Hill (born August 25, 1987) is an American former politician and social services administrator from Agua Dulce, California. A member of the Democratic Party, she served as the U.S. representative for California's 25th congressional district from January to November 2019. Hill is the former executive director of People Assisting the Homeless (PATH), a statewide non-profit organization working to end homelessness throughout California. She won her seat by defeating incumbent Republican Steve Knight in the 2018 midterm elections.

On October 18, 2019, RedState, a conservative blog, published a report on an alleged affair between Hill and her Legislative Director, which they both denied. On October 23, 2019, Hill admitted that she had had an inappropriate relationship with a campaign staffer before she became a Member of Congress. On October 27, 2019, she announced that she would resign from Congress. Nude photos of Hill were published by the Daily Mail, a British tabloid. Hill blamed the release of the photos on her ex-husband, called them an invasion of privacy and vowed to advocate for victims of revenge porn. She resigned on November 3, 2019, and left office two days later.

She denied her illegal misdeeds, then blamed her political opponents for uncovering those misdeeds.  Then sued the newspapers which revealed the misdeeds.  But there is a cautionary end to the tale for Susanna Gibson.

In June 2021, Hill was ordered to pay US$220,000 to the Daily Mail and other media, to reimburse the legal fees these companies spent defending themselves against her accusations.

Katie Hill was perhaps the more clear transgressor.  A sexual predator within the workplace taking advantage of subordinates is not just a moral issue but a legal one.  

On the other hand, livestreaming porn to an unsecure website sure sounds like a legal matter as well.  I guess it depends on Virginia's laws.

But again, really?  These do seem to be the sort of thing that even a cursory vetting process would uncover in advance.