You can now listen to Fox News articles!
The intriguing tale of Susanna Gibson and her bid for a seat in the House of Delegates has consumed much of the conversation in Virginia. The Democratic candidate made headlines when it was revealed by the Washington Post that she streamed sexual acts on a website called Chaturbate for financial gain. Despite the controversy, prominent Democrats, including the organization Emily’s List, have rallied behind Gibson. I initially paid little attention to this story until Gibson herself claimed that the exposure of her online activities constituted a “sex crime” and an infringement on her privacy.
According to the Post, Gibson posted over a dozen videos in September 2022, after officially joining the race in suburban Richmond. Virginia State Senator L. Louise Lucas and other Democrats have come to Gibson’s defense, accusing Governor Glenn Youngkin and the Republicans of orchestrating a smear campaign. However, it’s important to note that the original article was published by the Post.
Gibson’s Privacy Assertion
Let’s address Gibson’s claim about her privacy being violated. The Post disclosed that Gibson had been offering sexually explicit performances with her husband in exchange for “tips” online. This behavior allegedly took place after she had entered the race for the House of Delegates in the 57th district of suburban Richmond in September 2022.
My concern lies not with Gibson’s alleged online activities, but with her understanding of criminal and constitutional law. I also find it troubling that she positions herself as a victim of a sex crime. Genuine victims of such crimes need the support of the judicial and legislative systems. While there are a couple of potential tort claims that could be made in this situation, neither would hold much weight. One possibility is the tort of public disclosure of embarrassing private facts, which requires the information to be of legitimate concern to the public and highly offensive to a reasonable person. However, in this case, Gibson deliberately sought a public audience for her explicit acts in exchange for financial compensation.
The second potential tort is intrusion upon seclusion, where one intentionally invades another person’s private affairs or concerns. However, this does not apply in this situation as Gibson willingly sought public exposure. It is worth noting that our criminal laws present an anomaly – while it would be illegal for Gibson to sell sex on the streets under prostitution laws, it is not illegal to engage in sexual acts on film or in live chat rooms in exchange for money.
The Criminal Allegations
Supporting Gibson’s claim of a criminal offense, her lawyer Daniel P. Watkins referenced Virginia’s revenge porn law. This law classifies the malicious distribution of nude or sexual images with the intent to coerce, harass, or intimidate as a Class 1 misdemeanor. However, it is important to acknowledge that there is no evidence of malicious dissemination or the sale of any explicit images or videos. Gibson herself made these videos public, and her critics are merely describing the content rather than disseminating it further. Additionally, the site hosting the videos does not even require a password for access.
Even the service provider is protected by the law.
Using this law to target the Washington Post or political critics would clearly violate the First Amendment.
Watkins also referred to the case of Ronnie Lee Johnson v. Commonwealth of Virginia in support of Gibson’s claim of being a victim of a sex crime. While this case did involve the non-consensual distribution of a secret recording, Gibson has not made any claim that her husband secretly recorded their encounters or that she was unaware of or did not willingly participate in the publication of the sexual acts. According to the Post, Gibson interrupted sex acts in some videos to interact with viewers and request tips, even offering the option of a “private room” for additional payment.
My primary concern lies with Gibson’s understanding of criminal and constitutional law and her self-proclaimed victim status. Genuine victims of sex crimes deserve support from both the judicial and legislative branches. These concerns are relevant in considering Gibson as a legislator. As someone who has consistently championed the right to controversial speech and associations in one’s private life, I acknowledge that engaging in online pornography is a legal act for Gibson. However, the political consequences of her choices lie in the hands of the voters in the 57th District. Ultimately, this matter will be resolved in the realm of politics, not legality.
To read more from Jonathan Turley, click here.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a practicing criminal defense attorney. He is also a Fox News contributor.
Denial of responsibility! Vigour Times is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
