A Virginia Democrat running for a seat in the House of Delegates claims to have been the victim of a "sex crime." She wants the FBI to investigate "leaks" of her "online activity" that she is calling an "illegal invasion of [her] privacy designed to humiliate" her and her family, according to the New York Times.
Sounds bad, but wait until you read the fine print. The 40-year-old Democrat, Susanna Gibson, along with her husband, moonlighted as pornographers on an X-rated website, including while she was a candidate for office. In exchange for "tips," the duo offered to perform various sex acts in front of the camera, including but not limited to urination and violent sex.
"I'm raising money for a really good cause," Gibson said in one of these livestreams, uploaded on Sept. 5, 2022. It is unclear whether the cause was her campaign—Gibson announced her candidacy in July of last year for one of a handful of tight races that will determine control of the Virginia House of Delegates—but regardless, her side hustle is of obvious interest to Virginia voters casting their ballots in November.
Now that these explicit recordings, available to the public on third-party websites, are attracting news coverage, Gibson is siccing a lawyer on anyone who shares them, citing the Old Dominion's "revenge porn" law. Her lawyer, Daniel P. Watkins of the Meier Watkins Phillips Pusch firm, says that "it's illegal and it’s disgusting to disseminate this kind of material," according to the Times, and that he is "working closely with the F.B.I. and local prosecutors to bring the wrongdoers to justice." The Times, for its part, told readers that, while peddling opposition research may be common on political campaigns, this sort of opposition research is "highly unusual."
Think about that for a moment. Perhaps, perhaps, the disgusting behavior in question here is that of Gibson and her husband. Perhaps, perhaps, this sort of opposition research is highly unusual because, even in our depraved era, most political candidates don't fornicate on camera for cash. And perhaps, perhaps, the person who humiliated Gibson's family is Gibson herself, with an assist from her husband, not the handful of press outlets that aren't running cover for her campaign.
Characterizing this as "revenge porn" is a nice way to gaslight the public and the real victims of that act. The Virginia legislature passed the "revenge porn" law in 2014 after a man posted nude photos of his ex-girlfriend to a pornographic website without her consent. The statute is meant to hold that sort of creep accountable and protect victims, not to give cover to amateur porn stars in competitive elections and shield pertinent information from the public.
Adam Candeub, a law professor at Michigan State University and an expert on revenge porn, calls Gibson's comments "a complete perversion of these laws, which were meant to criminalize the release of private information." He added: "The idea that these current laws could be read to provide a field of privacy for people who engage in sex work is outrageous."
Gibson's performances offer voters a full picture—a little too full—of her professional background, and for readers interested in the X-rated version, you can find it here. Mr. Watkins, Ms. Gibson, we welcome that lawsuit.