Let’s start off by saying that a problem throughout this post is that I have to keep it from being too explicit. Still, I am going to talk about things like revenge porn laws, and even prostitution. Thus, a heavy dose of parental/reader discretion is advised.
Earlier today one of our new writers, ‘Tertullianus,’ wrote about Susanna Gibson. Gibson is running for Virginia’s House of Delegates, and yesterday we learned that Gibson had been on a website called ‘Chaturbate’ where she performed sex acts, with her husband, in exchange for tokens that apparently could be cashed out for real money.
And we learned this from the Washington Post. That’s an extra weird detail, given their history with former Governor Ralph Northam. I don’t want to get into the weeds of the coverage of Northam’s scandal too much, but either the Washington Post deliberately avoided investigating him, or it found dirt on him and didn’t share it. Either answer was inexcusable and it makes the fact they broke this story more than a little surprising.
In any case, let’s get back to Gibson. The Washington Post …
Monday morning's top headline on page 1 of the Richmond Times Dispatch was, uh, oddly prescient.
— John Arthur (@jarthur47) September 12, 2023
Because later Monday the Washington Post revealed: Va. Dem. House candidate performed sex online with husband for tipshttps://t.co/IKX4eFRLCg pic.twitter.com/sT3m6tFTz8
… details how The Post looked at some videos involved in exchanging sex on a webcam for tips. Specifically, she was on a site called Chaturbate which facilitates webcam ‘shows.’ In one session, she was asked to do a specific sex act with her husband. The Washington Post doesn’t say what act, but others do:
Meet Susanna Gibson, AKA ‘HotWifeExperience,’ The Dem Candidate Who Also Has An X-Rated Chaturbate Profile https://t.co/AqQHF8Lo4v
— Daily Wire (@realDailyWire) September 12, 2023
Then she said she wouldn’t do that act unless she was paid a certain amount. Chaturbate apparently allows people to tip users using ‘tokens’ that they buy with real money. Then she said they got that much and said they would do that act. The Washington Post doesn’t say if they actually went through with it. I suspect The Post doesn’t actually know.
Sorry to get into that much detail, but it will be relevant in a moment.
The Washington Post also reports that Gibson is playing the victim in all of this:
Daniel P. Watkins, a lawyer for Gibson, said disseminating the videos constitutes a violation of the state’s revenge porn law, which makes it a Class 1 misdemeanor to ‘maliciously’ distribute nude or sexual images of another person with ‘intent to coerce, harass, or intimidate.’
‘We are working closely with state and federal law enforcement,’ Watkins said.
To be blunt, that lawyer should worry more about the crimes his client may have committed. And for that matter, what crimes her husband might have committed, too. I’m not saying they are definitely guilty of any crime. But I am saying that if I was one of those law enforcement officers, I would be looking into the possibility.
Now, of course, we should always initially presume innocence, but their entire defense hasn’t been to say ‘I didn’t do this! It's not me in the videos!’ or ‘actually, I was being filmed secretly!’ They are saying they are upset that this live streamed content was recorded by third parties, but they aren’t saying it was broadcast on the Internet without their consent. And their complaint about recording necessarily means that they are conceding that the video I am discussing is real. For instance, we have this discussion in The Post article:
Asked why Gibson had a reasonable expectation of privacy on Chaturbate, Watkins pointed to a 2021 Virginia Court of Appeals ruling that found it was unlawful for a man to secretly record his girlfriend during a consensual sexual encounter even if he did not show the video to others.
In that case, Ronnie Lee Johnson v. Commonwealth of Virginia, the court found that consent to being seen is not the same as consent to being recorded, writing that there was a ‘stark distinction between an image existing only in someone’s memory … [and] a permanent file that may be shared or re-viewed indefinitely.’
And The Post talked to a creepy porn lawyer (not that one) about the legality of the Gibsons’ conduct:
Corey D. Silverstein, a prominent adult entertainment industry lawyer, said there is nothing illegal about streaming sex acts online as long as the participants and viewers are consenting adults — even if they are paid to perform specific acts.
‘There is absolutely no law that they are violating — none,’ he said. ‘In this case, you have two adults who are engaging in consensual sex, and they’ve decided they want to broadcast that, and they’re doing so in exchange for tipping. There’s absolutely nothing illegal about it.’
Sadly, this lawyer didn’t quit while he was ahead:
‘I think it’s fantastic you have someone running who has an open sex life. It’s actually very refreshing,’ added Silverstein, who is based in Michigan but practices around the country and the world.
But as creepy as that last bit is (no, it is not refreshing, you weirdo), I don’t think he is right about its legality, either. In fact, Chaturbate doesn’t seem to agree with the creepy lawyer, because it is a violation of their terms of service to perform specific acts for tips:
You are prohibited from providing "tips" for the performance of specific acts. Requesting or demanding specific acts for tips may result in a ban from the Platform for all parties involved.
The first potential crime that came to my mind was prostitution. Virginia Code § 18.2-346 defines prostitution as follows:
Any person who, for money or its equivalent,
(i) commits any act in violation of § 18.2-361; performs cunnilingus, fellatio, or anilingus upon or by another person; engages in sexual intercourse or anal intercourse; touches the unclothed genitals or anus of another person with the intent to sexually arouse or gratify; or allows another to touch his unclothed genitals or anus with the intent to sexually arouse or gratify or
(ii) offers to commit any act in violation of § 18.2-361; perform cunnilingus, fellatio, or anilingus upon or by another person; engage in sexual intercourse or anal intercourse; touch the unclothed genitals or anus of another person with the intent to sexually arouse or gratify; or allow another to touch his unclothed genitals or anus with the intent to sexually arouse or gratify and thereafter does any substantial act in furtherance thereof
is guilty of prostitution, which is punishable as a Class 1 misdemeanor.
I added line breaks to make it more readable. You will notice that subsection (I) deals with actually committing sex acts, while (II) deals with an offer, a.k.a. solicitation.
That statute also has several references to § 18.2-361. That statute covers a number of sexual acts that they call ‘crimes of nature’ involving unusually depraved behavior that is inherently illegal even if everyone consents. I won’t go into further detail, except to say that none of the reporting suggests that this statute applies, so you should disregard it.
So, putting that statute aside, let’s break down the rest of this law. First, it is obvious that this is ‘for money or its equivalent.’ Those ‘tokens’ can be easily described as the equivalent of money. On the other hand, if the person had offered a new car for sex, I doubt that it would be seen as the equivalent of money. But I feel pretty confident that such ‘tokens’ count.
And not for nothing, but allegedly we are not talking about very much money, if this person is to be believed:
I'm sorry to report that I looked up the value of the tokens...
— Andrew Follett (@AndrewCFollett) September 12, 2023
She wasn't only prostituting herself, she was doing it for literally $25 bucks.
BRB, need to vomit. pic.twitter.com/bOjvbRhAkI
Yikes.
Now, I mentioned a minute ago that The Post says they offered to do a specific sex act if they got enough tokens, and when they apparently did, she agreed to do it. I’m not going to name the act, but that statute lists a number of specific acts that would qualify and well … it’s on the list. You’ll have to trust me, but there is no wiggle room on this—it is on the list. So, they offered to do one of those specific sex acts, for the equivalent of money. If they actually went through with it, that easily fits into subsection (I). If they decided not to do it at the last minute then we are in subsection (II) territory. That requires an offer to carry out something on the list (check) for money or its equivalent (check) and then, after that, they ‘do[] any substantial act in furtherance thereof.’ Just like in conspiracy law, the substantial act in furtherance doesn’t have to be a crime all by itself. For instance, if there is a conspiracy to counterfeit money, buying a printer might be that act in furtherance of that conspiracy even though normally it is legal to buy a printer (in fact, it is protected by the First Amendment, normally).
And one detail I didn’t mention about that incident where she agreed to do a specific act is she said it would have to be done in ‘private room.’ Apparently, normally the feeds are available to the public, but she can set up a private feed where only certain people can view it. So, if one of the Gibsons merely set up that private room, but then they backed out of it, that would seem to satisfy the ‘act in furtherance’ requirement—at least for whoever set up the room. But its really not clear from the reporting that they did that or anything else that might be an act in furtherance. That would be a valid line of inquiry by the police that they are apparently talking to.
Still, a person might say, ‘but her husband is not paying for the sex and she isn’t buying it from her husband. Someone is basically paying them to have sex with each other.’ But the statute doesn’t concern itself with that distinction. It is satisfied the moment that the motivation becomes monetary and, if the reporting is accurate, that is what was happening.
And this makes sense. Let’s say a creepy uncle decides to hire a prostitute for his nephew on his 18th birthday and the nephew decides to accept that ‘gift.’ Wouldn’t that still be prostitution? This law says ‘yes.’
Further, prostitution can occur between a husband and wife. It's unimaginable in my relationship, but the truth is some marriages are more transactional than what I would consider to be ideal. You don’t hear of many prosecutions for prostitution within a marriage and I could offer why I think it is the case, but there is no direct legal bar to such a prosecution.
Now, there might be a limited First Amendment exception to this law. The Supreme Court has said you can’t prohibit the filming of all simulated or actual sex in movies, stage plays and so on, but the material is not protected if it is ‘obscene.’ In Miller v. California, 413 U.S 15 (1973), the Supreme Court defined obscenity as follows:
As a result, we now confine the permissible scope of such regulation to works which depict or describe sexual conduct. That conduct must be specifically defined by the applicable state law, as written or authoritatively construed. A state offense must also be limited to works which, taken as a whole, appeal to the prurient interest in sex, which portray sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and which, taken as a whole, do not have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
Put that all together, you could imagine a scenario where sex on a webcam might be deemed protected speech. For instance, imagine a group is performing a production of Romeo and Juliet with an added explicit sex scene, on a webcam. They might be able to claim that the performance as a whole has serious ‘artistic’ value. That might work as a defense in that hypothetical situation.
But I haven’t seen any allegation that the Gibsons were doing anything that could be claimed to have ‘serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.’ By all reports, they were just having sex for the gratification of themselves and others, and that legally obscene. So, I don’t think any kind of First Amendment defense applies.
But it leads me to the next possible crime they should be concerned about: obscenity.
First, Virginia has a statutory definition of obscenity in § 18.2-372 which says… pretty much what Miller just said.
Next, § 18.2-374 deals with the ‘[p]roduction, publication, sale, possession, etc., of obscene items.' Specifically, it says:
It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to:
(1) Prepare any obscene item for the purposes of sale or distribution; or
(2) Print, copy, manufacture, produce, or reproduce any obscene item for purposes of sale or distribution; or
(3) Publish, sell, rent, lend, transport in intrastate commerce, or distribute or exhibit any obscene item, or offer to do any of these things; or
(4) Have in his possession with intent to sell, rent, lend, transport, or distribute any obscene item. Possession in public or in a public place of any obscene item as defined in this article shall be deemed prima facie evidence of a violation of this section.
For the purposes of this section, ‘distribute’ shall mean delivery in person, by mail, messenger or by any other means by which obscene items as defined in this article may pass from one person, firm or corporation to another.
Thus, you need it to be an obscene item, and § 18.2-373 defines obscene items as including:
(1) Any obscene book;
(2) Any obscene leaflet, pamphlet, magazine, booklet, picture, painting, bumper sticker, drawing, photograph, film, negative, slide, motion picture, videotape recording;
(3) Any obscene figure, object, article, instrument, novelty device, or recording or transcription used or intended to be used in disseminating any obscene song, ballad, words, or sounds; or
(4) Any obscene writing, picture or similar visual representation, or sound recording, stored in an electronic or other medium retrievable in a perceivable form.
Thus, a person who merely does an obscene act live and broadcasts it, like the Gibsons may have done, is not creating an ‘obscene item’ unless it is recorded somehow and can be played back. Subsections (1)-(3) appear involve actual tangible objects, like books, actual reels of film, a photograph, etc. Meanwhile subsection (4) seems to include video files on a computer or on the Internet.
On the face of it, that doesn’t seem like this is what the Gibsons were doing. They are saying they didn’t want to be recorded. They didn’t want to create an ‘obscene item,’ according to them. The problem is that the standard is whether they ‘knowingly’ did. And Virginia courts have held that ‘unless the text of the statute dictates a different result, the term `knowingly' merely requires proof of knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense.’ Marshall v. Com., 708 S.E. 2d 253 (Va. App., 2011).
So, the question is what did they know, and when did they know it? Apparently, there are a number of websites that do in fact make recordings of the videos shared on Chaturbate—apparently without the authorization of Chaturbate or, allegedly, the Gibsons. But if they knew this would happen before they made a particular broadcast, then would that be enough to satisfy the statute? If they put on their show knowing it would be recorded, did they create an obscene item as the law requires?
Or let’s pick another hypothetical. Imagine a couple knows that their next-door neighbor is filming them in their bedroom from his house and making video tapes of them having sex. They didn’t ask him to, they don’t want him to, but they know he is doing it. Imagine they know that same neighbor then sells those videos to others. So, knowing this, they throw the curtains wide open and give the neighbor a ‘show.’ Would that be considered knowingly creating that video for purposes of the statute? On paper it seems to fit, but I am not sure a judge would go for such an interpretation.
A better fit comes from a different statute: § 18.2-375. That concerns itself with exhibitions and performances—basically when the sex is ‘live.’ It says, in relevant part:
It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to: …
… Produce, promote, prepare, present, manage, direct, carry on or participate in, any obscene exhibitions or performances, including the exhibition or performance of any obscene motion picture, play, drama, show, entertainment, exposition, tableau or scene[.]
The statute goes on, but we don’t have to read more. It seems obvious that if the reporting is accurate, that the webcam broadcast can be called an obscene exhibition or performance and that they participated in it. So, if their conduct was obscene—and boy does it sound like it was if you believe the reports—they appear to have violated that statue. A first offense would be a class 1 misdemeanor. Subsequent offenses would be a class 6 felony.
By the way, in Virginia, Class 1 misdemeanors can be punished with ‘confinement in jail for not more than twelve months and a fine of not more than $2,500, either or both.’ A class 6 felony carries the same potential fine, but a minimum of one year in prison, and a maximum of five. And experience tells me that the ears of law enforcement perk up quite a bit when you say the word ‘felony.’
And that’s just Virginia law. I’m not going to get into Federal law on obscenity or prostitution because I want to finish this piece tonight. For that matter, there is the very real possibility that their audience might live in multiple states in the union, and those states' laws might apply. And, for that matter, the laws of other countries might apply. I am going to ignore those issues tonight.
Also, some people have raised an issue of campaign finance, because it is not clear whether she began doing this before or after her campaign started, and at one point she said the tips were going to a good cause:
The fact that she said the money was for a good cause does make me wonder if there could be some campaign finance issues here. It sounds like the campaign could have been the “good cause.”
— Liz Mair (@LizMair) September 12, 2023
I don't pretend to know anything about campaign finance law. Still, my gut says that the 'good cause' she said her tips would go to wasn't her campaign, anyway. I am at a disadvantage, here, because I haven't seen the video, but from the reporting it sounds like the 'good cause' is the sex acts she will perform if she gets enough tokens, like as a bit of a joke. However, I could be wrong.
But that is only looking at the Gibsons—and both Susanna and her husband, John, could be in legal trouble. The next question is if anyone committed a crime related to this story coming to light.
The problem is I am not completely sure how that happened. The Washington Post makes it sound like there is a website that creates videos based on Chaturbate broadcasts and turns them into videos people can watch back. I would guess this website doesn’t do it for charity, but rather it is a commercial website, making money from customers or from ads, but I don’t know. It also says that a political actor brought at least one of these sites to the attention of The Post:
Chaturbate videos are streamed live on that site and are often archived on other publicly available sites. More than a dozen videos of the couple captured from the Chaturbate stream were archived on one of those sites — Recurbate — in September 2022, after she entered the race. The most recent were two videos archived on Sept. 30, 2022. It is unclear when the live stream occurred.
While still listed on Recurbate, those videos were no longer available for viewing as of Saturday, after a Republican operative alerted The Washington Post about them. But the videos remained live on another non-password-protected site, which The Post viewed. At least two other publicly available sites displayed explicit still photos from the videos, The Post confirmed. …
The Republican operative who alerted The Post to the videos denied any connection to the Owen campaign or other groups active in Virginia elections this year. The operative provided the information on the condition of anonymity to avoid being drawn into the controversy.
Still, let’s imagine that a commercial website had captured the broadcast and turned it into a recording. It would appear that this website had violated § 18.2-374, dealing with obscene items. As I said before, a file on the Internet would appear to be an item for purposes of that statute, so that would appear to violate the rule against ‘[p]repar[ing] any obscene item for the purposes of sale or distribution,’ copying such materials or even just possessing them.
But Mrs. Gibson's lawyer pointed toward another law: Virginia’s revenge porn statute. That would be Virginia Code § 18.2-386.1 and 386.2. I will start with the first section, which says:
A. It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly and intentionally create any videographic or still image by any means whatsoever of any nonconsenting person if
(i) that person is totally nude, clad in undergarments, or in a state of undress so as to expose the genitals, pubic area, buttocks or female breast in a restroom, dressing room, locker room, hotel room, motel room, tanning bed, tanning booth, bedroom or other location; or
(ii) the videographic or still image is created by placing the lens or image-gathering component of the recording device in a position directly beneath or between a person's legs for the purpose of capturing an image of the person's intimate parts or undergarments covering those intimate parts when the intimate parts or undergarments would not otherwise be visible to the general public;
and when the circumstances set forth in clause (i) or (ii) are otherwise such that the person being recorded would have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
(Line breaks added.)
First, you need a lack of consent. Second the person has to be either naked or in their underwear and exposing various erogenous zones. Third, they have to be in a number of different kinds of locations. The reporting and the heavily censored videos I have seen floating around Twitter suggests this took place in their bedroom. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the location fits the statute.
But the tricky part is the reasonable expectation of privacy. For instance, most couples have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their bedrooms. But if you have a bedroom on the ground floor, in a densely populated neighborhood, with no fence, and with large windows and no curtains or blinds, and you don’t even cover yourselves with bedsheets, you might have an expectation of privacy, but the law won’t see that as a reasonable one.
And, arguably, these people put a proverbial window to the entire world in their bedroom. The Post certainly didn’t seem to think they had any reasonable expectation of privacy, writing:
The Post typically does not identify victims of alleged sex crimes to protect their privacy. In this case, Gibson originally live-streamed these sexual acts on a site that was not password-protected. The couple had more than 5,700 followers there.
Their lawyer referenced Ronnie Lee Johnson v. Commonwealth of Virginia, which would appear to be Johnson v. Commonwealth, 860 S.E. 2d 408 (Va. App., 2021). That case concerned a woman who was having sex with a man on a regular basis and he had a hidden camera that was secretly recording her. Here, the Gibsons knew the camera was there, but they didn’t know specifically that anyone was recording it. But could you even call this privacy when thousands, maybe millions of people could be watching? Doesn’t that sound more like my hypothetical couple who have a bedroom with massive windows anyone can see inside?
And a person on TSMSFKA Twitter (The Social Media Site Former Known As Twitter) makes another good point:
Well, so much for Susanna Gibson's false protests. The terms and conditions she agreed to says her porn tapes are public information. https://t.co/GPa6BZycSf
— The Virginia Project UAC (@TVPUAC) September 13, 2023
He is quoting a post that has a screencap of the Chaturbate terms of service. The relevant passage says:
As noted in our Privacy Policy, all information and/or content you choose to post and/or share through your profile on the Platform, through chat (including private chat or ‘direct message’), and all content you stream or otherwise share through the Platform is considered public information. You agree to limit the information you share through the Platform keeping in mind we cannot control the use of such information by those with whom you share your information.
So they’re telling users that they don’t think any of this is private. And they are telling users that Chaturbate can’t control what users actually do with the information they share. How can anyone claim a reasonable expectation of privacy in that context? How can they claim any reasonable expectation that no one out of the thousands, maybe millions of viewers won’t will 'record?'
And there’s another thing at play, here. There is a concept called the doctrine of lenity. The Johnson case actually addressed it saying ‘Johnson invokes the rule of lenity, requiring that any ambiguity or reasonable doubt in a penal statute must be resolved in favor of the accused.’ It is a principle of the interpretation of criminal statutes designed to make sure that your behavior cannot be criminalized unless the statute unambiguously covers your conduct. In Johnson, they dismissed that concern because they felt that the statute was unambiguous when there was a secret camera recording the whole thing. But the doctrine of lenity might help a defendant arguing that if you allow thousands, maybe millions of anonymous people to watch you have sex, you can’t reasonably expect none of them to record it. I can’t be 100% sure, but I feel very confident that is where the Virginia courts are likely to come down. And it is where they should come down.
Then you get to § 18.2-386.2, which says:
Any person who, with the intent to coerce, harass, or intimidate, maliciously disseminates or sells any videographic or still image created by any means whatsoever that depicts another person who is totally nude, or in a state of undress so as to expose the genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast, where such person knows or has reason to know that he is not licensed or authorized to disseminate or sell such videographic or still image is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
The statute includes a bunch of other sections that deal with issues unrelated to this, but that is the part relevant to the facts I know of. But I will note that nothing in there includes any consideration of a reasonable expectation of privacy. But it does require an intent to coerce, harass, or intimidate. So, the Gibsons would argue that this political operative who told the times had that intent. He or she was trying to coerce Mrs. Gibson into leaving the race, they would say, or intimidate her into doing so, or they could argue it is was just harassment.
First, there is a real question of whether or not the political operative disseminated anything. From the Washington Post description, it sounds like all the person did was tell them how to find the video on the Internet. Maybe he even provided a link by email, or something like that. That’s not dissemination as that term is ordinarily defined.
But let’s imagine a scenario that does involve dissemination. Let’s imagine a hypothetical where her opponent, David Owen, just happened to like Chaturbate and used it anonymously. I have no evidence the real Mr. Owen did, but let’s play pretend. Also, I don’t know if it’s possible to use Chaturbate anonymously, but let's say it can. So, then he happens to see her channel and recognizes her. He tunes in the next time she is on, and starts recording—my understanding is that it is pretty easy to set up your computer to record whatever is on screen and gaming streamers do it all the time. And that recording captures the exact conduct I am discussing—having sex on camera, offering to do a specific act if her and her husband are paid enough. And then let’s say Mr. Owen personally takes the files and distributes it to the media, such as the Washington Post.
Even if you could stretch the law to cover that conduct, the First Amendment would prevent it from doing so. These videos were evidence that pertained to Mrs. Gibson’s character and fitness for office. The First Amendment has to protect it. Things might be different if my hypothetical Mr. Owen had in some way invaded a reasonable expectation of privacy but I don’t think that the Gibsons have a reasonable expectation on these facts. The First Amendment has to prevail and if any law that purports to make that conduct illegal, that law is unconstitutional.
And that also influences how the statute is interpreted. The courts have also long said that statutes were to be read as to avoid an interpretation that would render it unconstitutional. So maybe the courts will make sure it isn’t interpreted to reach protected speech in the first place, or maybe they just decide that it does reach such conduct, but the First Amendment trumps it. That might mean that the courts would strike the whole statute down, or the courts might just say it can't apply to those specific facts.
It is worth noting that former Congresscritter Katie Hill sued a number of outlets for publishing the mostly naked, but not quite explicit, pictures of her, as part of stories discussing her lifestyle. Ms. Hill also used a revenge porn law to try to punish people for journalism. A California court found that news outlets—which includes our sister site, Redstate—had a right to publish those photos, writing:
Here, Defendant has established that the images are a matter of public concern, as they speak to Plaintiff’s character and qualifications for her position as a Congresswoman, allegedly depicting an extramarital sexual relationship with a paid campaign staff member, the use of illegal drugs by a sitting Congresswoman, and a tattoo similar to the symbols formerly used by white supremacists. …
The facts of which these photos speak are about Plaintiff’s character, judgment and qualifications for her congressional position. Of course, these are matters of public concern. ‘[T]he publication does not proceed widely beyond the bounds of propriety and reason in disclosing facts about those closely related to an aspirant for public office, [and thus,] the compelling public interest in the unfettered dissemination of information will outweigh society’s interest in preserving such individuals’ rights to privacy.’
(Citations omitted). You can find the whole opinion, here:
Ex-Rep. Katie Hill's Revenge Porn Lawsuit Against Daily Mail (UK) Dismissed https://t.co/FOtcyVYSUz via @reason
— Howard Knopf (@howardknopf) April 7, 2021
And a word of caution to the Gibsons is in order. Ultimately, that lawsuit went very, very badly for Katie Hill:
Ex-pol Katie Hill files for bankruptcy after revenge porn case cost her $200K https://t.co/SNJFNTXdhl pic.twitter.com/F7Knzy2BhF
— New York Post (@nypost) July 16, 2022
Ms. Hill lashed out against that order at the time ...
A judge just ordered me to PAY the Daily Mail more than $100k for the privilege of them publishing nude photos of me obtained from an abuser.
— Katie Hill (@KatieHill4CA) June 2, 2021
The justice system is broken for victims.
Our fight continues - please chip in if you can: https://t.co/qKaSPpC2nq#BoycottDailyMail
… but ultimately she was the author of her own financial (and political) destruction. The Gibsons would be wise to avoid being the authors of their own destruction.
But before I wrap up this discussion about the legal issues related to this scandal, I will note this fact that took me aback when I learned it: Her husband, John Gibson, is a lawyer.
*jaw drops*
So, now we are talking about the possibility of attorney discipline, too. The rules of professional conduct state that ‘[i]t is professional misconduct for a lawyer to ... commit a criminal or deliberately wrongful act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness to practice law.’ If he is found to have committed prostitution or to have created an obscene performance, it is not altogether clear it would reflect on his honesty, trustworthiness or fitness to practice, but I find it flabbergasting that he would even risk it.
But before let’s return to a passage I quoted earlier because I think there is something insulting about it:
Daniel P. Watkins, a lawyer for Gibson, said disseminating the videos constitutes a violation of the state’s revenge porn law, which makes it a Class 1 misdemeanor to ‘maliciously’ distribute nude or sexual images of another person with ‘intent to coerce, harass, or intimidate.’
‘We are working closely with state and federal law enforcement,’ Watkins said.
Now you know a bit more about the law, isn’t that an amazing pile of chutzpah from him? I have outlined good reasons why I think the Gibsons might be in serious legal jeopardy. That’s usually a moment when a lawyer tells their clients not to talk to the police. But they are eagerly doing just that.
Is this lawyer stupid? Does this lawyer not see the risks? Or is it possible that this lawyer sees the risks and his clients aren’t listening to his advice?
Or here’s another possibility. Maybe everyone knows that they have nothing to fear from law enforcement. However guilty they are they are, factually, they know they are never going to be charge(D) with a crime?
I suppose only time will tell whether they are making a terrible unforced error, or they are being protecte(D).
