General Discussion

AngryAmish

(25,704 posts)

43. little background on Favre gawker dick pics

Mon Sep 1, 2014, 08:42 PM

Sep 2014

Favre was trying to entice the jets sideline reporter, Jen sturger, into having congress with him. After some back and forth he sent a picture of his genitals to her. He obviously did not intend for it to become public...since he was married with children. Ms sturger sent the pics to a friend ( while laughing at the old guy sending pictures of his junk) who then sold it to gawker. Who then published it.

Not all of the recent pictures are apace. But it is fair to say each of these pictures were sent to anothet person to tittleate them or to encourage them into congress. One does not put a curling iron into ones rectum then photograph oneself for your personal satisfaction, mostly. If a betrayal by a potential lover or a third party intercepts, both are an invasion of privacy.

That is why Favre and Lawrence are kinda the same. Get my point?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

62 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The hacker into Scarlet Johansson's online account was sentenced to 10 years in prison. [View all] pnwmom Sep 2014 OP

Did the Anthony Weiner photo-leaker go to jail? leftstreet Sep 2014 #1

didn't weiner send them the pic ? JI7 Sep 2014 #4

LOL I don't know. Can't help but notice the hypocrisy tho leftstreet Sep 2014 #5

huge difference. PeaceNikki Sep 2014 #7

Hard to say what you noticed, but it wasn't hypocrisy kcr Sep 2014 #10

That wasn't my point at all leftstreet Sep 2014 #18

Because get this? It isn't the same thing. kcr Sep 2014 #19

Um, Weiner was tweeting it to random people... JaneyVee Sep 2014 #31

And didn't Wiener tweet it to a minor? n/t sweetloukillbot Sep 2014 #55

He sent them unsolicited to random women. If he'd sent them to his wife, no one would care. nomorenomore08 Sep 2014 #57

It isn't hypocritical because the situations are completely different. pnwmom Sep 2014 #11

there is no hypocrisy and its an important JI7 Sep 2014 #12

This message was self-deleted by its author gollygee Sep 2014 #44

That wasn't done by a hacker, was it? pnwmom Sep 2014 #8

He always claimed it was, but who knows leftstreet Sep 2014 #13

no. he initially claimed that them admitted he lied. that's why he resigned, ffs PeaceNikki Sep 2014 #14

Yes, because there's just no way to know about that stuff is there? kcr Sep 2014 #15

It's completely different. cui bono Sep 2014 #32

A better analogy is Brett Favre AngryAmish Sep 2014 #24

Ah yes leftstreet Sep 2014 #30

Key fact is "he sent". He was not hacked and his pic was not stolen. n/t cui bono Sep 2014 #33

Weiner was not hacked either AngryAmish Sep 2014 #36

Yes, Weiner was not hacked either. cui bono Sep 2014 #38

little background on Favre gawker dick pics AngryAmish Sep 2014 #43

Disagree. Lawrence had the pics stored on a drive/server which got hacked. cui bono Sep 2014 #46

How do you know that? AngryAmish Sep 2014 #49

That's the story. Hacker released nude pics of celebrities. cui bono Sep 2014 #53

I am pointing out the gender imbalance and the gendered tropes AngryAmish Sep 2014 #56

But you are missing the mark. Two COMPLETELY different scenarios. cui bono Sep 2014 #58

I think I see where we are talking past each other AngryAmish Sep 2014 #59

That is my understanding of it. That someone hacked into icloud and grabbed the pics cui bono Sep 2014 #62

He sent the picture. NuclearDem Sep 2014 #42

evidence? AngryAmish Sep 2014 #50

Well, if it comes out Gwyneth got her hands on her ex-hubby's phone.... ProudToBeBlueInRhody Sep 2014 #60

What "people" here have been saying? itsrobert Sep 2014 #2

Lots of people. The worst of the comments, pnwmom Sep 2014 #9

Lol, my post didn't get hidden... alp227 Sep 2014 #48

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that. I changed my post to make clear that the nasty ones pnwmom Sep 2014 #51

It is possible to condemn the crime while still encouraging common sense re: the cloud. Warren DeMontague Sep 2014 #3

And raising awareness of the possible prison sentence might deter some idiotic hackers. pnwmom Sep 2014 #17

I'd agree with that, too. Warren DeMontague Sep 2014 #21

No one saw "Sex Tape" ProudToBeBlueInRhody Sep 2014 #61

Sentencing a hacker is good, should have gotten more time. Thinkingabout Sep 2014 #6

He stole extremely valuable property AngryAmish Sep 2014 #25

Once a thief, always a thief. Thinkingabout Sep 2014 #29

My first thought went further. kentauros Sep 2014 #45

I agree, like a pedophile, you sure would not give them a job in schools. Thinkingabout Sep 2014 #47

One can condemn both the hacker and the judgement behind putting nudes on the internet LittleBlue Sep 2014 #16

She didn't deliberately put the photos on the internet. pnwmom Sep 2014 #20

That's my point. Many people use their phone as their primary camera. Warren DeMontague Sep 2014 #22

Honestly, I *am* tech savvy and this nonsense took me off guard RedCappedBandit Sep 2014 #26

I think for years, apple has gone for making things seamlessly convenient for users Warren DeMontague Sep 2014 #27

I agree. It shouldn't be the default. n/t pnwmom Sep 2014 #37

Apple users on twitter say it's an option on the phone LittleBlue Sep 2014 #23

I dont know if everyone understands that, actually. Warren DeMontague Sep 2014 #28

No, even in 2014, not everyone understands the risk. Trumad made an OP about how pnwmom Sep 2014 #35

There's also a difference between putting something "on the internet" and cui bono Sep 2014 #34

Can't argue with that sentencing. AverageJoe90 Sep 2014 #39

Free money! XemaSab Sep 2014 #40

Nobody who is not a celebrity cwydro Sep 2014 #41

Sounds appropriate to me. aikoaiko Sep 2014 #52

People *should* know better. AND the hacker deserves jail time. Marr Sep 2014 #54