Privacy matters even with Tory ministers
September 29, 2014 6:03 AM Subscribe
Last Saturday, Tory cabinet minister for civil society Brooks Newmark resigned on the eve of the publication about his sexting habits. Allegedly he had sent unsolicited dirty pictures to a woman he thought was a Conservative Party activist, but was in fact an undercover reporter for the Sunday Mirror. Good, you may think, another scumbag who doesn't know the meaning of consent uncovered, but was this really the case, or was this actually a borderline criminal sting operation on the Mirror's part?
As details emerged over the weekend, it became clear that the reporter in question had, initiated the first contact and had contacted other Tories:
The Mirror justified its actions by arguing that Newmark's job also included getting more women into politics, but it led the Guardian to ask whether this was enough justification.
It may even have been criminal, according to Barrister Blogger:
As details emerged over the weekend, it became clear that the reporter in question had, initiated the first contact and had contacted other Tories:
The Sunday Mirror is facing accusations of entrapment over a sting on the minister for civil society after it emerged he was one of several MPs contacted by a male freelance reporter posing as a young female Conservative supporter on social media.Ironically, the Swedish model whose pictures were used for this sting, says she didn't consent to their use.
The reporter, who is not on the staff of the Sunday Mirror, created a fictional account of “Sophie Wittams” on Twitter, which has since been deleted, and appears to have contacted at least six Conservative MPs, including Pritchard and the latest Ukip defector, Mark Reckless.
The paper said the reporter made contact with Newmark while investigating the alleged inappropriate use of social media by MPs. After exchanging direct messages with “Sophie” on Twitter, Newmark swapped numbers with her, then sent explicit pictures of himself using the messaging service WhatsApp. It is not known whether the woman whose image was used on the fake Twitter account had given consent, or who was depicted in the explicit images sent to the MP.
The Mirror justified its actions by arguing that Newmark's job also included getting more women into politics, but it led the Guardian to ask whether this was enough justification.
It may even have been criminal, according to Barrister Blogger:
The crime which springs to mind in this case is that of “causing a person to indulge in sexual activity without consent” contrary to S.4 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Should the Editor, Lloyd Embley, have known what was planned and offered any encouragement to the journalist then both he and the journalist would be guilty of the offence under the principle of “joint enterprise”.
That awkward moment when a bad politician is forced to leave for a bad reason.
posted by acb at 6:24 AM on September 29, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by acb at 6:24 AM on September 29, 2014 [2 favorites]
Wait ... so he sent naughty pictures of himself to someone who had *asked* for them?
I genuinely don't understand -- what is he supposed to have done that was wrong?
posted by kyrademon at 6:26 AM on September 29, 2014 [16 favorites]
I genuinely don't understand -- what is he supposed to have done that was wrong?
posted by kyrademon at 6:26 AM on September 29, 2014 [16 favorites]
Been catastrophically unlucky/stupid enough to fall for a tabloid entrapment scheme?
posted by pharm at 6:31 AM on September 29, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by pharm at 6:31 AM on September 29, 2014 [1 favorite]
what is he supposed to have done that was wrong?
Being married at the time, I believe.
posted by pompomtom at 6:32 AM on September 29, 2014
Being married at the time, I believe.
posted by pompomtom at 6:32 AM on September 29, 2014
That said: "Tory cabinet minister for civil society ... has resigned"? How the fuck would anyone notice the difference?
posted by pompomtom at 6:37 AM on September 29, 2014 [10 favorites]
posted by pompomtom at 6:37 AM on September 29, 2014 [10 favorites]
> "Being married at the time, I believe."
Ah, yes, the article acb links to does mention that. *Shrug* Still always thought that was a silly reason for a politician's career to end, myself.
Why does the FPP text say the photos were "unsolicited", by the way? The articles seem to be saying that the reporter had been posing as a woman "interested in sex" and that they "exchanged pictures".
posted by kyrademon at 6:37 AM on September 29, 2014 [3 favorites]
Ah, yes, the article acb links to does mention that. *Shrug* Still always thought that was a silly reason for a politician's career to end, myself.
Why does the FPP text say the photos were "unsolicited", by the way? The articles seem to be saying that the reporter had been posing as a woman "interested in sex" and that they "exchanged pictures".
posted by kyrademon at 6:37 AM on September 29, 2014 [3 favorites]
I genuinely don't understand -- what is he supposed to have done that was wrong?
If you're married with kids and a Tory MP, the people who voted for you generally don't expect you to distribute pictures of your penis on social media.
posted by colie at 6:39 AM on September 29, 2014 [8 favorites]
If you're married with kids and a Tory MP, the people who voted for you generally don't expect you to distribute pictures of your penis on social media.
posted by colie at 6:39 AM on September 29, 2014 [8 favorites]
Still always thought that was a silly reason for a politician's career to end, myself.
Were he French, I expect "I get about, so what?" would be a reasonable response, but this is the UK Tories we're talking about. Hard to know if it's the dick pic or the ability to use social media that's the real crime here.
posted by pompomtom at 6:40 AM on September 29, 2014 [4 favorites]
Were he French, I expect "I get about, so what?" would be a reasonable response, but this is the UK Tories we're talking about. Hard to know if it's the dick pic or the ability to use social media that's the real crime here.
posted by pompomtom at 6:40 AM on September 29, 2014 [4 favorites]
“I think grown adults can do whatever they like as long as both of them are over the age of consent,” she said. “I don’t think it’s something to resign over.”
You know what Charlene? I agree. But the thing is, Tory people don't think like that. They harp on about values and decency like human beings don't have sexual urges and needs. Then it just turns out they're just giant fucking hypocrites.
posted by Talez at 6:42 AM on September 29, 2014 [12 favorites]
You know what Charlene? I agree. But the thing is, Tory people don't think like that. They harp on about values and decency like human beings don't have sexual urges and needs. Then it just turns out they're just giant fucking hypocrites.
posted by Talez at 6:42 AM on September 29, 2014 [12 favorites]
From "So Brooks Newmark sent some explicit pictures – why should he resign?" by Zoe Williams in The Guardian:
posted by grouse at 6:45 AM on September 29, 2014 [4 favorites]
They love the sin but not the sinnerHeh.
posted by grouse at 6:45 AM on September 29, 2014 [4 favorites]
In further bad news for the Tories one of defecting MP Mark Reckless' constituents brands him "a flouted pelmvessel who should be hodded into sollulence, literally".
posted by sobarel at 6:51 AM on September 29, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by sobarel at 6:51 AM on September 29, 2014 [3 favorites]
The bit I don't get is why it's supposed to be especially ironic that he made a bit of a platform of encouraging more women to be involved in politics. I take it the implications supposed to be that this was all a smokescreen, and he only wants them to do the sex, hurfdurf?
posted by Diablevert at 6:53 AM on September 29, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by Diablevert at 6:53 AM on September 29, 2014 [1 favorite]
I don't think he should go to jail or anything, but my sympathy is limited. Ok, he fell for an embarrassing scheme. But sending cellphone pics of yourself to a love interest, that you know could embarrass you, especially if you are a married public figure, especially a conservative married public figure, is incredibly stupid.
Like, setting-your-own-pants-on-fire stupid.
That doesn't mean I think you don't deserve treatment for your painful burns, but c'mon, use some common sense, friend.
Were I his constituent, I would be more distressed by his idiocy than the action itself. Though I would certainly feel sympathy for his wife and hope that she publicly dumps him.
posted by emjaybee at 6:54 AM on September 29, 2014 [12 favorites]
Like, setting-your-own-pants-on-fire stupid.
That doesn't mean I think you don't deserve treatment for your painful burns, but c'mon, use some common sense, friend.
Were I his constituent, I would be more distressed by his idiocy than the action itself. Though I would certainly feel sympathy for his wife and hope that she publicly dumps him.
posted by emjaybee at 6:54 AM on September 29, 2014 [12 favorites]
I very much do not like this man's policies, voting record or party, and I do like a well timed political scandal, but this is bullshit. There is no way he should have resigned. I think far less of him (and his party) for resigning instead of standing up and saying "so fucking what?"
I kinda want to campaign for him to go back and do his job like anyone else would. Yeah, maybe he's a bit embarrassed for being both credulous and horny, but tough. He was set up by the worse of the gutter press and even if he wasn't it's still not a good reason to go.
Bet you guys wish you'd stood up for decent press regulations now...
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 6:56 AM on September 29, 2014 [5 favorites]
I kinda want to campaign for him to go back and do his job like anyone else would. Yeah, maybe he's a bit embarrassed for being both credulous and horny, but tough. He was set up by the worse of the gutter press and even if he wasn't it's still not a good reason to go.
Bet you guys wish you'd stood up for decent press regulations now...
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 6:56 AM on September 29, 2014 [5 favorites]
Borderline criminal press exposes borderline moron minister for borderline addled public. Plus, WhatsApp and Twitter, in case the whole thing wasn't adolescent enough already.
What's not to hate about any of them?
posted by spitbull at 6:57 AM on September 29, 2014 [2 favorites]
What's not to hate about any of them?
posted by spitbull at 6:57 AM on September 29, 2014 [2 favorites]
I don't think it was right for the market trader to tell Jack that the beans were magic, or to defraud him of his cow in return for said magic beans, but come on Jack, you believed they were magic beans!
posted by Thing at 7:00 AM on September 29, 2014 [5 favorites]
posted by Thing at 7:00 AM on September 29, 2014 [5 favorites]
Also whenever I hear the phrase "gray area" I think it refers to the entire UK.
posted by spitbull at 7:01 AM on September 29, 2014 [8 favorites]
posted by spitbull at 7:01 AM on September 29, 2014 [8 favorites]
535 members of congress. i wonder how many of them would fall for this, even after the cautionary weiner tale.
posted by bruce at 7:02 AM on September 29, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by bruce at 7:02 AM on September 29, 2014 [2 favorites]
Is there something like the Dunning-Kruger effect, only relating to sexual desirability rather than competence?
posted by acb at 7:04 AM on September 29, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by acb at 7:04 AM on September 29, 2014 [1 favorite]
Bet you guys wish you'd stood up for decent press regulations now...
For what? If one gets on board with the party of "decency" and "family values" one should hold to their principles or at least appear to practice what they preach. I don't think anyone here agrees he did anything wrong but he did do something colossally stupid and hypocritical. The fact that the gutter press set him up is immaterial when he would have done it anyway.
Entrapment is where someone causes you to perform an action you would not have performed anyway. Solicitation is not entrapment because you obviously were ready to perform the action even if this wasn't an undercover reporter.
posted by Talez at 7:04 AM on September 29, 2014 [4 favorites]
For what? If one gets on board with the party of "decency" and "family values" one should hold to their principles or at least appear to practice what they preach. I don't think anyone here agrees he did anything wrong but he did do something colossally stupid and hypocritical. The fact that the gutter press set him up is immaterial when he would have done it anyway.
Entrapment is where someone causes you to perform an action you would not have performed anyway. Solicitation is not entrapment because you obviously were ready to perform the action even if this wasn't an undercover reporter.
posted by Talez at 7:04 AM on September 29, 2014 [4 favorites]
Capital W, Bruce?
posted by Diablevert at 7:05 AM on September 29, 2014
posted by Diablevert at 7:05 AM on September 29, 2014
He's still an MP, so his constituents may yet have another opportunity to vote for him. He only resigned from cabinet.
posted by maledictory at 7:08 AM on September 29, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by maledictory at 7:08 AM on September 29, 2014 [1 favorite]
There is no way he should have resigned. I think far less of him (and his party) for resigning instead of standing up and saying "so fucking what?"
Whether he remains a minister is not really up to him, so the disapproval is best addressed at the leadership of the Conservative Party.
posted by grouse at 7:11 AM on September 29, 2014
Whether he remains a minister is not really up to him, so the disapproval is best addressed at the leadership of the Conservative Party.
posted by grouse at 7:11 AM on September 29, 2014
I can't tell -- did the reporter ask for the pictures, or just contact the politicians while pretending to be young and female? Because I don't see the problem with "let's see what politicians do when an attractive woman contacts them" is really that bad, while "let's see if this married politician will sext someone if we ask him to" is, if nothing else, boring.
posted by jeather at 7:14 AM on September 29, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by jeather at 7:14 AM on September 29, 2014 [2 favorites]
I like that two of the MPs they targeted are called "New Mark" and "Reckless". Was there no John Gullible, Rt Hon member for Old Sarum? William Simpleton, Hon member for Dunwich? Or even Lord Weak of Mynd?
posted by Thing at 7:24 AM on September 29, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by Thing at 7:24 AM on September 29, 2014 [4 favorites]
jeather: They certainly engaged in flirtatious direct messages. Whether they specifically asked for revealing pics isn't entirely clear.
posted by pharm at 7:36 AM on September 29, 2014
posted by pharm at 7:36 AM on September 29, 2014
I know right? Almost as Shakespearian as Weiner or Packwood.
posted by spitbull at 7:36 AM on September 29, 2014
posted by spitbull at 7:36 AM on September 29, 2014
diablevert, i haven't seen the pix myself, but i'm told they're closer to a lower-case w. you could try enlarging them by rubbing on them, aladdin's lamp-style, but i don't think you'll get any wishes.
posted by bruce at 7:44 AM on September 29, 2014
posted by bruce at 7:44 AM on September 29, 2014
You know, this comes up in every political sex scandal, but I think there's something to it. The sheer narcissism required to be a modern politician selects for people who think *everyone* wants (or should want) to see their damn dick, that Swedish models/twenty-something political operatives who look like Swedish models will simply find your dumpy bald ass irresistible, and that you couldn't possibly be caught because you're so awesome and everyone wants you to be in charge.
They always seem so surprised to be despised.
I'm still getting over a grown man using WhatsApp for anything.
posted by spitbull at 7:54 AM on September 29, 2014 [5 favorites]
They always seem so surprised to be despised.
I'm still getting over a grown man using WhatsApp for anything.
posted by spitbull at 7:54 AM on September 29, 2014 [5 favorites]
"I don't think he should go to jail or anything, but my sympathy is limited. Ok, he fell for an embarrassing scheme. But sending cellphone pics of yourself to a love interest, that you know could embarrass you, especially if you are a married public figure, especially a conservative married public figure, is incredibly stupid. "I was all ready to jump on this as being incredibly victim blamey, because after all the UK is supposed to be a free society and the explicitly receptive people anyone sends pictures of their dick to are absolutely the business of the person sending the dick pic (Bonus points for following the pointers available here). However, not withstanding Tory prudishness, there is one important aspect of his position as a public figure that very much makes his dick pic habits public business: how lucky the British public is that it was the Mirror running a smear campaign and not someone looking to blackmail him. The British public very much has a valid interest in important public figures who do not open themselves up to having their decisions influenced in this kind of pathetically stupid way.
Forget about the pruriently phallic panic or privacy, this idiot sent what amounts to joystick that could be effectively used to control his actions to a random person on the internet who stole a professional model's photo.
posted by Blasdelb at 8:12 AM on September 29, 2014 [4 favorites]
I can't tell -- did the reporter ask for the pictures, or just contact the politicians while pretending to be young and female? Because I don't see the problem with "let's see what politicians do when an attractive woman contacts them" is really that bad, while "let's see if this married politician will sext someone if we ask him to" is, if nothing else, boring.
It's also rather O'Keefeian. Which is why it's of dubious journalistic value.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:26 AM on September 29, 2014
It's also rather O'Keefeian. Which is why it's of dubious journalistic value.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:26 AM on September 29, 2014
So someone's consensually-delivered naked pictures have been leaked to the public... and we're mad/laughing at the person whose nude pictures were made public without their consent? That's fucked up.
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 8:42 AM on September 29, 2014 [8 favorites]
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 8:42 AM on September 29, 2014 [8 favorites]
When he asked 'her' to swear on a stack of bibles that she wouldn't tell anyone - even if he didn't know before - that was the moment he knew he was in the wrong but he still went ahead and did it anyway. He's was found out to be a cheating letch whose responsibility was ensuring more women entered parliament, which is just awful. Given the amount of scrutiny on parliament these days particularly in the aftermath of recent events like the Lord Rennard scandal, it was a colossally dumb thing to do.
I'm glad he's gone. He's an idiot.
posted by urbanwhaleshark at 8:50 AM on September 29, 2014 [1 favorite]
I'm glad he's gone. He's an idiot.
posted by urbanwhaleshark at 8:50 AM on September 29, 2014 [1 favorite]
"They should just clone ministers, you know, so we're born at 55 with no past, and no flats, and no genitals." Hugh Abbott, Minister for the Department of Social Affairs and Citizenship.
As Newmark was minister for Civil Society, he even shared the same job as his fictional counterpart.
posted by devious truculent and unreliable at 9:08 AM on September 29, 2014 [2 favorites]
As Newmark was minister for Civil Society, he even shared the same job as his fictional counterpart.
posted by devious truculent and unreliable at 9:08 AM on September 29, 2014 [2 favorites]
I don't think he should go to jail or anything, but my sympathy is limited. Ok, he fell for an embarrassing scheme. But sending cellphone pics of yourself to a love interest, that you know could embarrass you, especially if you are a married public figure, especially a conservative married public figure, is incredibly stupid.
Now imagine he was a female celebrity who did the same.
Would you say the same?
I'd say this is victim blaming.
posted by MartinWisse at 9:10 AM on September 29, 2014 [9 favorites]
Now imagine he was a female celebrity who did the same.
Would you say the same?
I'd say this is victim blaming.
posted by MartinWisse at 9:10 AM on September 29, 2014 [9 favorites]
how lucky the British public is that it was the Mirror running a smear campaign and not someone looking to blackmail him. The British public very much has a valid interest in important public figures who do not open themselves up to having their decisions influenced in this kind of pathetically stupid way.
That's still victim blaming and like the old arguments that homosexuals were a security risk because of blackmail, only made possible by the enablement of the media and politicians who make this into an issue.
In healthy, sane democracies, neither the voter nor the media cares for the private lives of its politicians.
posted by MartinWisse at 9:12 AM on September 29, 2014 [9 favorites]
That's still victim blaming and like the old arguments that homosexuals were a security risk because of blackmail, only made possible by the enablement of the media and politicians who make this into an issue.
In healthy, sane democracies, neither the voter nor the media cares for the private lives of its politicians.
posted by MartinWisse at 9:12 AM on September 29, 2014 [9 favorites]
Why does the FPP text say the photos were "unsolicited", by the way
That was the way the story was presented, back on Saturday and why there was at first little sympathy for him. It was only yesterday and this morning the full story came out.
posted by MartinWisse at 9:14 AM on September 29, 2014
That was the way the story was presented, back on Saturday and why there was at first little sympathy for him. It was only yesterday and this morning the full story came out.
posted by MartinWisse at 9:14 AM on September 29, 2014
Now imagine he was a female celebrity who did the same.
Would you say the same?
I'd say this is victim blaming.
If it was a female celebrity who was a) conservative and lectured others on their sexual behavior while also b) cheating on her spouse with someone she clearly hadn't vetted and barely knew, I would also roll my eyes.
If you are referring to the female celebrities who had their nudes leaked, they had not sent those nudes to random people; the images were on their phones or in their Dropboxes.
It's the difference between mailing a salacious letter to someone you barely know (who then shares it with the world), and writing sexy thoughts down in a personal journal. If someone broke into your house and stole your journal and published it, that would be much worse.
posted by emjaybee at 9:28 AM on September 29, 2014
Would you say the same?
I'd say this is victim blaming.
If it was a female celebrity who was a) conservative and lectured others on their sexual behavior while also b) cheating on her spouse with someone she clearly hadn't vetted and barely knew, I would also roll my eyes.
If you are referring to the female celebrities who had their nudes leaked, they had not sent those nudes to random people; the images were on their phones or in their Dropboxes.
It's the difference between mailing a salacious letter to someone you barely know (who then shares it with the world), and writing sexy thoughts down in a personal journal. If someone broke into your house and stole your journal and published it, that would be much worse.
posted by emjaybee at 9:28 AM on September 29, 2014
Hacker steals nude selfies and these are used to embarrass and cause damage to a public figure.
I'm sure we covered this recently.
posted by zoo at 9:30 AM on September 29, 2014 [1 favorite]
I'm sure we covered this recently.
posted by zoo at 9:30 AM on September 29, 2014 [1 favorite]
If it was a female celebrity who was a) conservative and lectured others on their sexual behavior
Have you read of him doing that or are you just assuming on the basis that he's a Conservative?
I doubt that we will have enough information to accurately judge his level of culpability until he or an inquest releases the verbatim exchanges (the Mirror won't do it), so from my perspective he has been quickly dropped as part of a practically autonomic enforcement of sex-shame culture. He is definitely in the wrong for attempting to cheat on his wife, but people cheat constantly and in the hundreds of thousands of such acts every day it is not considered a reason to end someone's career. Precisely one party did not consent to being part of this mutually-concocted fantasy and it is looking dubious that the person who exploited them will face any consequences.
posted by forgetful snow at 10:39 AM on September 29, 2014 [2 favorites]
Have you read of him doing that or are you just assuming on the basis that he's a Conservative?
I doubt that we will have enough information to accurately judge his level of culpability until he or an inquest releases the verbatim exchanges (the Mirror won't do it), so from my perspective he has been quickly dropped as part of a practically autonomic enforcement of sex-shame culture. He is definitely in the wrong for attempting to cheat on his wife, but people cheat constantly and in the hundreds of thousands of such acts every day it is not considered a reason to end someone's career. Precisely one party did not consent to being part of this mutually-concocted fantasy and it is looking dubious that the person who exploited them will face any consequences.
posted by forgetful snow at 10:39 AM on September 29, 2014 [2 favorites]
I think its possible to think he's a ninny and the Mirror was shady (there's speculation that this was a story sold to the mirror by an independent journalist, possibly someone associated with Guido Fawkes)
posted by Cannon Fodder at 11:11 AM on September 29, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by Cannon Fodder at 11:11 AM on September 29, 2014 [2 favorites]
What's not to hate about any of them?
Indeed. Everyone in this story seems fairly contemptible. I don't know why it's necessary to pick sides.
posted by octobersurprise at 11:25 AM on September 29, 2014 [1 favorite]
Indeed. Everyone in this story seems fairly contemptible. I don't know why it's necessary to pick sides.
posted by octobersurprise at 11:25 AM on September 29, 2014 [1 favorite]
Has the dick pict actually been posted? I assume there is actually a dick pict, but I also assume the Mirror didnt' have a front page full flap dict pict gracing it's cover (outside of any ethical issues would have been pretty hilarious).
If the dick pict hasn't been posted then the privacy violation we are talking about is the assertion that this politician did XYZ (which he apparently did). That doesn't sound like a privacy violation to me. Would it be a privacy violation if someone came forward and said 'xyz politician hit on me'? What about 'I had an affair with politician xyz'?
Should he resign over this sillyness? I'd be pretty pissed if a politician I liked and cared about resigned over some sex scandal (see Spitzer); and I'd blame the politician for not standing his ground (fessing up to the inappropriate behavior and refusing to resign).
I'd say the only victim in this whole mess is the Swedish model who engaged in no activity related to any of this and received unwanted attention and notoriety that she did not ask for. And fuck the Guardian for naming her in the story (they could still get the quote from her without naming her); that women didn't ask to be part of this and adding her name to the whole matter wasn't in any kind of public interest.
posted by el io at 11:34 AM on September 29, 2014 [3 favorites]
If the dick pict hasn't been posted then the privacy violation we are talking about is the assertion that this politician did XYZ (which he apparently did). That doesn't sound like a privacy violation to me. Would it be a privacy violation if someone came forward and said 'xyz politician hit on me'? What about 'I had an affair with politician xyz'?
Should he resign over this sillyness? I'd be pretty pissed if a politician I liked and cared about resigned over some sex scandal (see Spitzer); and I'd blame the politician for not standing his ground (fessing up to the inappropriate behavior and refusing to resign).
I'd say the only victim in this whole mess is the Swedish model who engaged in no activity related to any of this and received unwanted attention and notoriety that she did not ask for. And fuck the Guardian for naming her in the story (they could still get the quote from her without naming her); that women didn't ask to be part of this and adding her name to the whole matter wasn't in any kind of public interest.
posted by el io at 11:34 AM on September 29, 2014 [3 favorites]
(I should say, everyone, excluding said Swedish model, of whom I know nothing at all. Is she contemptible? Speculation is idle.)
posted by octobersurprise at 11:41 AM on September 29, 2014
posted by octobersurprise at 11:41 AM on September 29, 2014
I'd say the only victim in this whole mess is the Swedish model who engaged in no activity related to any of this and received unwanted attention and notoriety that she did not ask for. And fuck the Guardian for naming her in the story (they could still get the quote from her without naming her); that women didn't ask to be part of this and adding her name to the whole matter wasn't in any kind of public interest.
She wrote about the incident on her own public blog and apparently didn't ask for her name to be withheld. Moreover, she has at least some level of noteriety in Sweden, apparently having competed in their version of Next Top Model. She's a public figure, and it would be super-weird of them to withhold her name for that reason alone. But even if she were not, I think it would be appalling for the Guardian to hold back on reporting factual information which has no bearing on the subject's reputation at its own whim. Rape victim's names and the names of the dead before their families are notified privately, yes. Anybody who would have preferred not to be in the news today, if they throw a hissy fit? No. It was an important and necessary part to the story to find out whether the woman whose photo was used knowingly participated, and proper for them to give her a chance to speak for herself.
posted by Diablevert at 11:46 AM on September 29, 2014
She wrote about the incident on her own public blog and apparently didn't ask for her name to be withheld. Moreover, she has at least some level of noteriety in Sweden, apparently having competed in their version of Next Top Model. She's a public figure, and it would be super-weird of them to withhold her name for that reason alone. But even if she were not, I think it would be appalling for the Guardian to hold back on reporting factual information which has no bearing on the subject's reputation at its own whim. Rape victim's names and the names of the dead before their families are notified privately, yes. Anybody who would have preferred not to be in the news today, if they throw a hissy fit? No. It was an important and necessary part to the story to find out whether the woman whose photo was used knowingly participated, and proper for them to give her a chance to speak for herself.
posted by Diablevert at 11:46 AM on September 29, 2014
Yeah, I'm pretty much 100% with the Zoe Williams article.
The blackmail argument -- idk, I can see it, but I think it's also sort of a leap. We don't know from this series of actions how he would have reacted if he had been asked for money or political favors, and of course giving one of those things is very different from giving the other (assuming it's his own money). I don't think you can argue from the existence of a dick pic (or a stained dress, for that matter) that it's just a slippery slope all the way down to treason.
posted by en forme de poire at 11:55 AM on September 29, 2014
The blackmail argument -- idk, I can see it, but I think it's also sort of a leap. We don't know from this series of actions how he would have reacted if he had been asked for money or political favors, and of course giving one of those things is very different from giving the other (assuming it's his own money). I don't think you can argue from the existence of a dick pic (or a stained dress, for that matter) that it's just a slippery slope all the way down to treason.
posted by en forme de poire at 11:55 AM on September 29, 2014
urbanwhaleshark: He's was found out to be a cheating letch whose responsibility was ensuring more women entered parliament, which is just awful.It's awful that his sexual behaviors are not pure and unreproachable? You demand much more than I do of elected officials. I'd be happy if they were generally forthright with their constituents, and worked for what they genuinely believed was best for their people, on the whole.
OK, and didn't eat babies.
posted by IAmBroom at 12:23 PM on September 29, 2014
emjaybee: If you are referring to the female celebrities who had their nudes leaked, they had not sent those nudes to random people; the images were on their phones or in their Dropboxes.A person who has misrepresented themselves as a fictional, sexually desirable woman and is actively flirting with him is hardly "random". Quite the opposite.
posted by IAmBroom at 12:25 PM on September 29, 2014 [1 favorite]
I'd be happy if they were generally forthright with their constituents, and worked for what they genuinely believed was best for their people, on the whole.
Given that will never, ever happen, and that this slug believes in nothing other than capitalism, then just be satisfied with one more banker/politician hybrid parasite being exposed as a lecherous old hypocrite and liar.
posted by colie at 12:39 PM on September 29, 2014
Given that will never, ever happen, and that this slug believes in nothing other than capitalism, then just be satisfied with one more banker/politician hybrid parasite being exposed as a lecherous old hypocrite and liar.
posted by colie at 12:39 PM on September 29, 2014
Because I don't see the problem with "let's see what politicians do when an attractive woman contacts them" is really that bad, while "let's see if this married politician will sext someone if we ask him to" is, if nothing else, boring.
I think apparently using some random woman's "sunbathing selfie", without her consent, to sext to a politician to see if he'll sext her back is pretty fucking bad.
posted by corb at 1:02 PM on September 29, 2014 [1 favorite]
I think apparently using some random woman's "sunbathing selfie", without her consent, to sext to a politician to see if he'll sext her back is pretty fucking bad.
posted by corb at 1:02 PM on September 29, 2014 [1 favorite]
"She wrote about the incident on her own public blog and apparently didn't ask for her name to be withheld. Moreover, she has at least some level of noteriety in Sweden, apparently having competed in their version of Next Top Model. She's a public figure, and it would be super-weird of them to withhold her name for that reason alone."
She wrote about it the same day she was named in various publications. There is nothing to suggest that she first wrote about it, or outed herself. The first story about her (that others are 'quoting') appears in Swedish. So the Guardian never spoke to her at all. I would assume they tried to (why wouldn't they?) but she declined. But apparently she appeared on "Next Top Model" so she is a public figure now, and doesn't deserve privacy at all.
Oh, but the public 'deserves' to know, does it? Well, before everyone started publishing her name she was already getting harrassed over this. "- It feels really unpleasant things. I have received lot of emails, text messages and phone calls from various countries on this today" ( source + google translate). Do you think all those calls and messages decreased after various international publications published her name?
I wonder if you'd feel the same way about her not deserving privacy rights if you saw the random strangers messages to her that she is getting now (and will continue to get until this thing dies down).
Don't get me wrong, I'm not down with censorship, assholes should have the right to publish her name if they want... But for the Guardian to take a moralistic tone when talking about the Mirror's activity seems pretty inappropriate given their own transgressions.
For gods sakes, the Guardian has an entire article entitled 'I didn't give the Mirror permission to use my photo' which presumes that her privacy felt violated (and while the Mirror used her picture, it didn't use her name, did it?). Yeah, there are a bunch of bad actors here, and in my mind the Guardian was one of them.
posted by el io at 1:06 PM on September 29, 2014
She wrote about it the same day she was named in various publications. There is nothing to suggest that she first wrote about it, or outed herself. The first story about her (that others are 'quoting') appears in Swedish. So the Guardian never spoke to her at all. I would assume they tried to (why wouldn't they?) but she declined. But apparently she appeared on "Next Top Model" so she is a public figure now, and doesn't deserve privacy at all.
Oh, but the public 'deserves' to know, does it? Well, before everyone started publishing her name she was already getting harrassed over this. "- It feels really unpleasant things. I have received lot of emails, text messages and phone calls from various countries on this today" ( source + google translate). Do you think all those calls and messages decreased after various international publications published her name?
I wonder if you'd feel the same way about her not deserving privacy rights if you saw the random strangers messages to her that she is getting now (and will continue to get until this thing dies down).
Don't get me wrong, I'm not down with censorship, assholes should have the right to publish her name if they want... But for the Guardian to take a moralistic tone when talking about the Mirror's activity seems pretty inappropriate given their own transgressions.
For gods sakes, the Guardian has an entire article entitled 'I didn't give the Mirror permission to use my photo' which presumes that her privacy felt violated (and while the Mirror used her picture, it didn't use her name, did it?). Yeah, there are a bunch of bad actors here, and in my mind the Guardian was one of them.
posted by el io at 1:06 PM on September 29, 2014
There are some really shifting standards here. In the recent celebrity leak, it was generally agreed that taking naked pictures that were intended for a specific person (i.e. personal sexts) and leaking them to the public, as done by sites like Is Anyone Up, is a form of sexual assault, even if no hacking was involved. But now, because the victim is someone people don't like, it's just unpleasant at worst. If Ann Coulter was sexually assaulted, it would be pretty shitty to say "Ha ha ha, betcha wish you had feminism now."
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 1:58 PM on September 29, 2014
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 1:58 PM on September 29, 2014
ThatFuzzyBastard: So you're saying the dick picts were posted somewhere?
Your analogy is flawed. A better analogy would be if Ann Coulter had sent someone she had met only on twitter private pictures of herself and that person told the world "Ann sent me pictures of herself nekkid!" (but didn't actually repost or distribute those pictures). And yeah, if the person didn't redistribute those pictures I might have a chuckle at Ann's expense.
The only privacy being violated here is the model, IMHO.
So, in summary, the Mirror needs to start having full-page dick pictures on it's front page. (oh, woops, no, not that, nevermind).
posted by el io at 2:09 PM on September 29, 2014
Your analogy is flawed. A better analogy would be if Ann Coulter had sent someone she had met only on twitter private pictures of herself and that person told the world "Ann sent me pictures of herself nekkid!" (but didn't actually repost or distribute those pictures). And yeah, if the person didn't redistribute those pictures I might have a chuckle at Ann's expense.
The only privacy being violated here is the model, IMHO.
So, in summary, the Mirror needs to start having full-page dick pictures on it's front page. (oh, woops, no, not that, nevermind).
posted by el io at 2:09 PM on September 29, 2014
You demand much more than I do of elected officials.
You say elected official I say public servant. His poor choice, in the wake of the current sex scandals, speaks volumes about his ability to do his job. So, yeah, screw him. I don't like morons in positions of power.
posted by urbanwhaleshark at 2:12 PM on September 29, 2014
You say elected official I say public servant. His poor choice, in the wake of the current sex scandals, speaks volumes about his ability to do his job. So, yeah, screw him. I don't like morons in positions of power.
posted by urbanwhaleshark at 2:12 PM on September 29, 2014
Mirror needs to start having full-page dick pictures on it's front page
Every time they have a photo of Cameron you mean.
posted by urbanwhaleshark at 2:14 PM on September 29, 2014
Every time they have a photo of Cameron you mean.
posted by urbanwhaleshark at 2:14 PM on September 29, 2014
Oh, but the public 'deserves' to know, does it? Well, before everyone started publishing her name she was already getting harrassed over this. "- It feels really unpleasant things. I have received lot of emails, text messages and phone calls from various countries on this today" ( source + google translate). Do you think all those calls and messages decreased after various international publications published her name?
I think all those calls were probably mostly from journalist seeking to confirm the story and get quotes from her; there's no evidence that she was the victim of harassment before her name emerged. I don't think there's any way to responsibly report this story without using her name; whether or not the journalist was doing this with permission and from whom is a key part in figuring out who bears the blame here. The story would be quite different if, for example, the editors of the Mirror had gone out and hired someone or purchased stock photos to use for their side of the sting. So I think the question of "who is the girl in the photos and did she consent to their use" is crucial. I'm sure this isn't fun for her. But it's not fun for the relatives of people who get shot or hurt in accidents to have their names in the paper either; it is news. I think it'd be a far worse precedent to have journalists deciding on a whim who gets covered and who doesn't based on how much sympathy they feel for them personally.
posted by Diablevert at 2:15 PM on September 29, 2014
I think all those calls were probably mostly from journalist seeking to confirm the story and get quotes from her; there's no evidence that she was the victim of harassment before her name emerged. I don't think there's any way to responsibly report this story without using her name; whether or not the journalist was doing this with permission and from whom is a key part in figuring out who bears the blame here. The story would be quite different if, for example, the editors of the Mirror had gone out and hired someone or purchased stock photos to use for their side of the sting. So I think the question of "who is the girl in the photos and did she consent to their use" is crucial. I'm sure this isn't fun for her. But it's not fun for the relatives of people who get shot or hurt in accidents to have their names in the paper either; it is news. I think it'd be a far worse precedent to have journalists deciding on a whim who gets covered and who doesn't based on how much sympathy they feel for them personally.
posted by Diablevert at 2:15 PM on September 29, 2014
"But it's not fun for the relatives of people who get shot or hurt in accidents to have their names in the paper either; it is news."
Every time I see someone shove a camera in front of a grieving relative with the 'reporter' asking them how they feel, I wish the person would punch the reporter in the face. I would totally jury nullify the shit out of that, if I were on such a jury. So yeah, those bottom-feeding ambulance chasing reporters can fuck the right off as well. And I would argue it's not news that a grieving relative is grieving. "Your son was killed in a mass murder yesterday, please help out network profit a bit from your tragedy and tell us how you feel about it - it might be a 'news' to our viewers that you're somewhat upset."
Yeah, most of that isn't actually news.
posted by el io at 3:15 PM on September 29, 2014 [1 favorite]
Every time I see someone shove a camera in front of a grieving relative with the 'reporter' asking them how they feel, I wish the person would punch the reporter in the face. I would totally jury nullify the shit out of that, if I were on such a jury. So yeah, those bottom-feeding ambulance chasing reporters can fuck the right off as well. And I would argue it's not news that a grieving relative is grieving. "Your son was killed in a mass murder yesterday, please help out network profit a bit from your tragedy and tell us how you feel about it - it might be a 'news' to our viewers that you're somewhat upset."
Yeah, most of that isn't actually news.
posted by el io at 3:15 PM on September 29, 2014 [1 favorite]
I'm really having a hard time seeing this guy as much of a victim. His privacy was invaded by a skeezy tabloid, an invasion enabled by the fact that he was being an utter douchebag. I have no sides to root for in this fight.
posted by emjaybee at 3:21 PM on September 29, 2014
posted by emjaybee at 3:21 PM on September 29, 2014
And I would argue it's not news that a grieving relative is grieving.
I didn't argue that. I argued that who the victim is is an important part of the story when you're reporting on a murder.
posted by Diablevert at 3:47 PM on September 29, 2014
I didn't argue that. I argued that who the victim is is an important part of the story when you're reporting on a murder.
posted by Diablevert at 3:47 PM on September 29, 2014
From The Toast, which is this cool website I discovered and you should try: Unsolicited Dick Pics Through the Ages: A Selected History
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:17 AM on September 30, 2014
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:17 AM on September 30, 2014
These were solicited dick pics. Solicited under false pretenses. Solicited for the express purpose of leaking them to cause embarrassment. That's a pretty important distinction.
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 7:53 AM on September 30, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 7:53 AM on September 30, 2014 [2 favorites]
He won't be missed by the charity sector after his comments a few weeks ago that charities should stay out of politics. I don't like the way he went, but what would I know about that? I'll just be over here sticking to my knitting.
posted by Helga-woo at 8:58 AM on September 30, 2014
posted by Helga-woo at 8:58 AM on September 30, 2014
Solicited for the express purpose of leaking them to cause embarrassment.
No they weren't. They were solicited for the express purpose of telling people that they existed. Unless I'm mistaken the pics themselves have not been leaked. That distinction is pretty important I think.
("Hey, I have a picture of El Io's dick" vs "Hey, if you want to see a picture of El Io's dick, click this link!")
posted by el io at 2:04 PM on September 30, 2014
No they weren't. They were solicited for the express purpose of telling people that they existed. Unless I'm mistaken the pics themselves have not been leaked. That distinction is pretty important I think.
("Hey, I have a picture of El Io's dick" vs "Hey, if you want to see a picture of El Io's dick, click this link!")
posted by el io at 2:04 PM on September 30, 2014
Another important distinction is between saying "I have a picture of El Io's dick" versus contacting El Io, telling him how much you want a picture of his dick, and when he sends it, immediately posting "El Io sent me a picture of his dick! OMG what a pervy asshole!" It's not quite sexual assault, but it's not so far from it either. And people replying with "What an idiot!" are doing some ugly-ass victim-blaming.
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 6:57 PM on September 30, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 6:57 PM on September 30, 2014 [2 favorites]
« Older Paper birds | 30 years of Coens Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by GenjiandProust at 6:11 AM on September 29, 2014 [6 favorites]