Ongoing Dem Debacle Thread: Commander will kill us all

[Louis Gossett Jr]

Why are republicans so repressed sexually and weird about it? Is it just another power thing and the desire to control woman? Rooted in their hypocritical religious views, which then go back to controlling woman? It’s just strange.

 

[Wakeforest22890]

Obviously if you post pictures to the internet it's not illegal for other people to post them absent some other illegal activity (extortion for not spreading pictures further for instance).

 

[birdman]

I think I am done with this conversation. The initial premise was [Angus]"this lady fucked up and will the tunnels left condemn? Dems never face consequences for their fuck-ups!"[/Angus]. She's resigned, her career in politics is over, and pretty much every member of the "tunnels left" have said her actions were inappropriate and are perfectly comfortable with her resignation. This case is pretty much closed. She seems like a sexual wild-child and her ex-husband seems like a dick, they should all get therapy... I think that's about it.

 

[RJKarl]

Here's the DC definition of revenge porn:
Knowingly disclosing one or more sexual images of another identifiable person when:
The person depicted did not consent to the disclosure of the sexual image;
There was an agreement or understanding between the person depicted and the person disclosing that the sexual image would not be disclosed; and
The person disclosed the sexual image with the intent to harm the person depicted or to receive financial gain.

So what you are arguing is that a sexual partner of a "powerful person" is free to disclose intimate photographs from the relationship to "bring down" that powerful person?

Note that the definition of "revenge porn" would not include, say, a Russian kompromat video of a prominent American politician engaging in unsavory activities, taken without that politician's knowledge and therefore without the agreement of that person that it would be secret. Taking such a video would be illegal for various reasons under US law, but if the Russians sent it to a US media outlet which published it (ewww) nobody would be guilty of violating the revenge porn statute.

But Junebug knows that Madison, Jefferson, Monroe thought about publishing naked pics of an ex to harm that person was an integral part of free speech.

 

[bym051d]

I think I am done with this conversation. The initial premise was [Angus]"this lady fucked up and will the tunnels left condemn? Dems never face consequences for their fuck-ups!"[/Angus]. She's resigned, her career in politics is over, and pretty much every member of the "tunnels left" have said her actions were inappropriate and are perfectly comfortable with her resignation. This case is pretty much closed. She seems like a sexual wild-child and her ex-husband seems like a dick, they should all get therapy... I think that's about it.

You fell into the patented Brad “by dummies, for dummies” trap.

 

[Deacfreak07]

But Junebug knows that Madison, Jefferson, Monroe thought about publishing naked pics of an ex to harm that person was an integral part of free speech.

To be fair, Jefferson and Madison weren’t exactly above this kinda shit. It’s the 21st century Reynolds Pamphlet.

 

[birdman]

You fell into the patented Brad “by dummies, for dummies” trap.

It seemed worth it to mock Angus at first, but now that we are arguing over the threat that Hill's nude pictures pose to national security, it seems a bit abzurd.

 

[bmoneydeac]

If you post pics of yourself on a swinger site, It’s not revenge porn it’s exposed sorry. How dumb do you have to be?

Let’s just say hypothetically Lynsey Graham was Dick out on a gay dating website, and that picture was brought to the media’s attention, do y’all seriously think the media would be all over that shit? Comon.

Having said that if Katie wants to get weird then that’s her personal business, besides being an idiot, and possibly having a nazi tattoo? She did absolutely nothing serious enough to resign. I mean comon who hasn’t been in a threesome and smoked a bong. Quit being prudes.

Did she post 700+ pics to the site? And (asked earlier) did she consent to the however many were posted? Don’t know that it’s settled. Dickhead certainly wouldn’t be the first asshole to post naked wife pics to reddit unbeknownst to the wife.

And gtfo with the nazi tattoo talk. Iron cross (with no superimposed nazi imagery) is used by many different groups. Is there anything in her background that points to white supremacy?

 

[DistrictDeacon]

GTFO with that nonsense. I’m arguing that it is free speech when used to bring down powerful people.

Good luck with that line of argument counselor.

 

[PhDeac]

She's cool cause she wants to bang other dudes? lol that ain't my jam, man.

Other dudes? The threesome was with another woman. The male staffer is rumor at this point and she's divorcing her husband anyway.

 

[ImTheCaptain]

Other dudes? The threesome was with another woman. The male staffer is rumor at this point and she's divorcing her husband anyway.

somehow, though not surprisingly, dudes here are threatened by this woman's sexuality

 

[ImTheCaptain]

How did they know it was Hill and her husband, not just the husband?

Can we pause for a bit too appreciate that Katie Hill is cool AF?

she probably should've just hunkered down for a few days and then come out being like "yeah, i like to swing. lots of people are into it and you know those OWGs love cranking it to cuckporn"

 

[ImTheCaptain]

I don’t need luck. It’s a straightforward argument to anyone who deals with constitutional issues. Congresspeople’s sex lives can, in some instances, be a matter of public concern and, thus, speech about it can be entitled to constitutional protection.

but not tax returns

 

[RJKarl]

I don’t need luck. It’s a straightforward argument to anyone who deals with constitutional issues. Congresspeople’s sex lives can, in some instances, be a matter of public concern and, thus, speech about it can be entitled to constitutional protection.

It's not a matter of "public concern" if the person isn't hiding anything.

 

[DistrictDeacon]

I don’t need luck. It’s a straightforward argument to anyone who deals with constitutional issues. Congresspeople’s sex lives can, in some instances, be a matter of public concern and, thus, speech about it can be entitled to constitutional protection.

Happy for you to point out which of CA's exemptions to the revenge porn law would cover leaking photos to the press.

 

[RJKarl]

By definition the person is refusing to consent to the release of the photographs.

If the underlying events don't concern the person, other than being pissed at the photos being out there, there is nothing to blackmail. It's not like she was hiding anything other than her naked body.

 

[DistrictDeacon]

I’m sorry; I thought you were a lawyer.

The constitution trumps CA law by virtue of the Supremacy Clause.

So would leaking Trump's tax returns be legal if they showed criminal acts? His medical records if they showed a condition he denied?

 

[ImTheCaptain]

so, really, nothing is illegal as long as it's in service of bringing a criminal to justice, you say?

 

[WakeandBake]

Other dudes? The threesome was with another woman. The male staffer is rumor at this point and she's divorcing her husband anyway.

I quoted your response to a post about wife-swapping where you said she was cool, my man.

 

[WakeandBake]

somehow, though not surprisingly, dudes here are threatened by this woman's sexuality

im threatened? Not being into wife-swapping makes me threatened? Youre a dumbshit