Revenge Porn As Opposition Research: A Disturbing Trend in Political Strategy
Revenge Porn As Opposition Research: A Disturbing Trend in Political Strategy
Exploring how the Susanna Gibson case brings to light the troubling use of intimate material as a political weapon.
Look, let's cut to the chase.
We've seen some messed-up stuff lately where personal, intimate details are being used as political ammo. Think about Hunter Biden, the president's son, who had his private photos splashed all over the internet. Or Susanna Gibson, an up-and-comer in Virginia politics, whose sex life is currently (gift article) being twisted into a smear campaign to question her suitability for office. It's nasty and it's a big deal because this trend isn’t just about them.
It's a new sign of just how low things have sunk in Republican politics.
Because we live our lives online, the line between our public and private selves has become increasingly blurred, making it even more crucial to defend the sanctity of individual consent, agency, and privacy. This is no more apparent than in the instances where sexual material, created within a consensual context, is weaponized for political ends. Whether it's a candidate running for local office or the child of a presidential candidate, the unauthorized dissemination of such material is not just a privacy violation—it becomes an act of revenge porn magnified by the political stage.
Here's the thing: this shouldn't be okay, ever.
Just because you've consented to share something in one context doesn't mean it should be free game for the whole world to see, especially when the aim is to embarrass or hurt you. Sure, some folks are saying "anything goes" in politics these days, but that's a dangerous road to go down. You can't just focus on the message—the "what"—you have to also look at the "how." And if the "how" includes spreading intimate photos or details without consent, that's crossing a line.
“A criminal act has occurred here, and that’s the dissemination of revenge porn by a Republican operative” —Gibson’s attorney, Daniel P. Watkins, to AP.
Because these intimate acts were originally live-streamed on an adult site, most people won't grasp the nuanced issue of digital privacy at play here. So, they might find it tough to empathize with the candidate, even though what she did was legal. Her team stressing the loss of her privacy or the potential illegality of sharing links to her videos—videos that were made public without her say—could actually backfire, making people less sympathetic to her plight. And this is no accident. It's a calculated move by a savvy Right that knows the average citizen doesn't really get the ins and outs of privacy and is willing to use the issue for leverage. They're exploiting this gap in understanding to twist the concept of privacy into a political weapon, and not in a way that benefits the public.
This is also a trend.
Gibson’s statement said alerting the media to the videos is dirty politics aimed at silencing “women when they speak up.”
Esteemed Reader, I agree.
The Washington Post's decision to break the story about Gibson brings to light some deeply troubling ethical considerations. She and her husband live-streamed sexual acts within a specific, adult context and did not authorize their broader dissemination. By making her sex life an issue worthy of news coverage, The Post effectively shifted these acts from their original context into a political arena, a place where they were never intended to exist.
In doing so, The Post also veered away from its own editorial guidelines, which usually protect the identities of alleged victims of sex crimes to preserve their privacy. The paper had to have known that by publishing this story, they were not merely reporting facts but adding a layer of condemnation, despite their ostensibly neutral tone. They not only invaded Gibson’s privacy but also changed the narrative surrounding her, making her private life an unwilling part of her public persona.
In doing so, they violated their own standards regarding Taste, specifically “prurience”:
What makes the entire situation even more unsettling is that it was sourced from a single tip from an anonymous Republican operative.
As reported by the Post:
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.
Again, The Post’s own standards don’t align with this action:
Political operatives shop their “oppo research” to the largest media companies willing to run it. Exclusivity is often a parameter in play to help boost the publisher’s scoop, clicks, and reputation. It seems clear the newspaper decided that, because it could independently verify that the candidate for office had indeed engaged in legal sex acts, and this was certain to produce a big story, it was in the clear to run the information.
But what about respecting “taste and decency”, per their own policy?
Gibson’s political opponent responded,
“Me and my team found out about this story today like everyone else,” Owen said in a written statement Monday afternoon, soon after The Post published an article about Gibson. “I’m sure this is a difficult time for Susanna and her family, and I’m remaining focused on my campaign.”
Whether or not her opponent’s campaign had prior knowledge, this tactic—source anonymity coupled with a potent personal revelation—is deeply descriptive of the very issue at hand. The Post, by entertaining this tip and deciding to run the story, has continued to serve as a willing player in a growing GOP strategy which relies on the weaponization of private, intimate details drawn from sources who maintain the privilege of anonymity for political gain.
Furthermore, her political opponent’s response, while professing ignorance, did not condemn the obvious breach of privacy and unethical conduct. In that failure to condemn, there is a quiet endorsement of these tactics, an acceptance of a political battlefield where ethical boundaries are deemed irrelevant.
I posit these incidents are not merely individual misbehaviors on the part of a floundering and desperate GOP, but instead point to a larger sinister pattern in their political arena.
This trend of using intimate, consensual moments to attack people like Hunter Biden, not previously a candidate for office, and more recently Susanna Gibson, is more than just tabloid fodder. It's a sign of how revenge porn is being repackaged as political strategy, undermining the very essence of our democracy: open and honest discussion.
Wider access to tech such as facial recognition, it's getting easier for bad actors to connect the dots and invade our privacy in a big way. It's not just a concern for politicians or celebs; it could happen to any of us. WaPo’s choice to publish serves as a grim reminder that without a collective decision to respect those boundaries, we are all potential casualties in this new, merciless style of politics, because qualified candidates may be excluded by voters (us!) on the basis of questionable information obtained by questionable means and intent.
The point that must be underscored here is that this trend should never be deemed acceptable behavior. Consent for one context does not give carte blanche for use in another, least of all in a manner designed to harm or humiliate. While the GOP increasingly pushes the narrative that all is fair in war and politics, it is imperative that citizens consider not just the message, but the tactics used to disseminate that message.
So what can we do?
It's high time we put pressure on getting some federal laws in place to actually protect our privacy. The increasing audacity of influence actors to push the boundaries of ethical conduct should make us pause and consider the broader implications. This issue isn't really about protecting public figures who are justifiably subject to a wider range of protected speech from the citizenry; it's about safeguarding the integrity and quality of our personal lives, democracy, and discourse.
Let's focus just as much on how messages get to us, not just what they're saying, because with the way things are going, that's where the real damage is being done.