| |
News: Gawker Outs Reddit CFO
Member Since: 6/12/2010
Posts: 515
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Retro
Priyanka Chopra, please tell me how exactly you think this is morally justifiable on the part of the escort. You still haven't done that. How is this okay? How is it at all okay to expose someone's sexuality to the entire world when it is their private information, their business? How is it justifiable to demand a service from someone and react like this when they become uncomfortable that you have stalked them and bail? How is it morally justifiable, furthermore, if the whole thing turns out to be bull? And don't hit me with the "cheating" line when we (still!) don't have any indication that's actually what happened.
|
Dissect ha!
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 34,855
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Big Smoke
That's not how it works fam. I can't record a phone call with you and then leak it to the ****ing media without it being an invasion of privacy. Private messages also fall under that claim. I swear you kids are dumb as ****. Either way from a journalistic standpoint its horrible and frowned upon.
|
This isn't universally true. Most states only require one-party consent, which is to say that only one person involved in the conversation is required to give consent for the whole conversation to be legally recorded.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/6/2014
Posts: 9,220
|
What I want to know is why are people acting like they had sex? I didn't read anything in the text exchange saying that David wanted sex. The escort sent a penis picture and David replied with "You're killing me" not something typical like "Yummy, can't wait to blah blah blah to it". He could have just wanted companionship.
Even if he did plan to have sex with this Leaf fellow, he didn't. Also, there isn't any indication that his wife was in the dark at the time. Maybe she gets alone time with the pool boy, we don't know.
The final point is that this guy isn't a hate monger, isn't a politician or rabbi or anything that would warrant a public story like this. He doesn't have a platform where he says gay people are going to hell or that two men who sleep together are gross. When you add in his job with who broke the story, it gets extra sick. Let's not even talk about the absurd reasoning the escort went to the presses with this.
Like dude, you got evicted for having a dog against your lease. You have no proof for it being a companion dog. Seriously a messed up individual.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/6/2012
Posts: 8,639
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Sazare
Did the CFO actually break the law if he and the escort never fulfilled the transaction (so to speak)? The money was sent but they never met up.  |
No he never broke the law and they never met. And even if he did, paying someone for the vague purposes of meeting up is not illegal (nor should it be). Between this and the Hulk Hogan lawsuit, I hope Gawker is buried under litigation and closes down.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 12/10/2011
Posts: 12,699
|
Quote:
Originally posted by DG1
mess. but wth would someone pay $2,500 for a hookup.   |
Quote:
Originally posted by Lights and Waves
This! Why would you ever pay for sex? Literally hop on Grindr for one second, change your display name to "Visiting" and boom, messages will flood in.
The CFO is handsome as **** too, like, why would you pay for something you can get for free...
|
This is how I feel. It's just so gross to me when people pay for **** or *****.
It's so morally repugnant, that's probably why it's illegal 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 26,488
|
How awful of the escort. Cannot wait for him to be outed.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 8,579
|
That escort is AWFUL. And am I the only one bothered that he basically just ****ed up a guy's life while maintaining anonymity?
That said, the CFO is obviously in the wrong too cause, you know, cheating. But that escort is just.... No words
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/2/2011
Posts: 4,285
|
Quote:
Originally posted by jpow
How awful of the escort. Cannot wait for him to be outed.
|
He already likely was. Read the thread.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/6/2012
Posts: 8,639
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucko
Wait Geithner is married and has 3 kids and you think the escort is a scum bag? lol
|
There is no evidence for what you're saying and this may very well be an extortion attempt which Gawker is aiding and abetting.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/17/2013
Posts: 5,341
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Rick
THIS !
Like ATRL is really something else ! |
No one is saying Geithner isn't wrong. But in what world does two wrongs make a right? Girl, two lefts will get you even further back than where you were before!
It's not about Geithner cheating on his wife and kids - that's morally south. But there's something very wrong about a media outlet and a jilted rentboy looking to air his own unrelated grievances teaming up to out this high profile citizen's PRIVATE business. Like what purpose does this even serve? Why do we have this attitude that being a cheater means you deserve to lose your job and your reputation? Him cheating on his wife has everything to do with him and his wife, and the public has no need to be informed or involved.
Everyone deserves the right to privacy when it comes to their sexual orientation, even if they are mishandling it. The only people who ought to be involved are their sexual partners - that's about it. No one else has the right to know. On top of that, Gawker's publication of this is CLEARLY based on the slant that a gay affair is more scandalous than a heterosexual affair. Everything here is meant to spin on Geithner cheating on his wife with a MAN, as if it's more reprehensible that he turned out to have a sexual attraction to males. There's nothing good that comes from ridiculous media circus antics like these and they need to stop.
On top of that, UM the rentboy was clearly attempting to extort Geithner by dangling his sexuality over his head. And Gawker just helped him make good on his threats.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 12/10/2011
Posts: 12,699
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Sazare
Did the CFO actually break the law if he and the escort never fulfilled the transaction (so to speak)? The money was sent but they never met up. |
Yes, he was soliciting a prostitute. You don't actually have to complete the sex act. Once the money was FedEx'd that's when he broke the law.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/6/2014
Posts: 9,220
|
To answer the question why somebody would pay for a hookup. Thanks to the links that MLD provided, I read a forum about it. I suppose if you want a guy that you wouldn't be able to get due to your age or how you look, you buy one. The guys on rentboy.com (Two I found that I actually know of from Grindr/Facebook) aren't your standard affair. They're attractive, built and hung.
It's like cars. You may not be able to snag a Lamborghini but you can sure test drive one
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 8,579
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Praise Mariallah
Yes, he was soliciting a prostitute. You don't actually have to complete the sex act. Once the money was FedEx'd that's when he broke the law.
|
Actually, he didn't. Paying for an escort to spend time with you, whether or not sex ends up being part of that, is considered legal as, technically, you're paying for the time together and not the sex (the fact that sex is obviously going to be involved doesn't change this)
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 12/10/2011
Posts: 12,699
|
From the receipts given, the only person who broke the law in this scenario is the CFO.
Outing someone isn't illegal. Especially if that person is a public figure, which this guy is kinda-sorta. The law states that a public figure would have to prove actual malice on part of the defamer in order to have any libel/defamation case whatsoever. This is because public figures have the platform and power to clear their names publicly versus a regular who does not. As I said, it's arguable that this guy is a public figure since he's the brother of the former treasurer of the United States + the current CFO of a fortune 500 company and former VP of Time, Inc. Although I personally would consider him a "private citizen".
Now if the CFO has any text messages or recordings of the escort threatening him if he didn't do what was asked then he has a case because that is extortion. However, if the escort never threatened him and instead just decided to out him for attention then he doesn't have, like I said before, a leg to stand on legally. The CFO's rep actually released a statement flat out denying knowing the escort, so it seems he isn't even going to attempt an extortion charge, because in order to do that he'd have to own up to his own actions as well.
Quote:
Originally posted by Repo
Actually, he didn't. Paying for an escort to spend time with you, whether or not sex ends up being part of that, is considered legal as, technically, you're paying for the time together and not the sex (the fact that sex is obviously going to be involved doesn't change this)
|
No, it's not. Prostitution is only legal in Nevada. Soliciting an advertised escort is illegal, period. And is considered illegal after a monetary transaction is made. Google it.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/4/2010
Posts: 38,919
|
This was bound to end in tragedy. If he wants to hookup with a guy there are much more discrete and safer ways he can go about it.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/6/2012
Posts: 8,639
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucko
Wait Geithner is married and has 3 kids and you think the escort is a scum bag? lol
|
Going by your logic, media outlets should publish unverified evidence of any private citizen who has ever thought about cheating on their spouse with an escort. 'Cause they're scumbags right?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/6/2012
Posts: 8,639
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Praise Mariallah
From the receipts given, the only person who broke the law in this scenario is the CFO.
Outing someone isn't illegal. Especially if that person is a public figure, which this guy is kinda-sorta. The law states that a public figure would have to prove actual malice on part of the defamer in order to have any libel/defamation case whatsoever. This is because public figures have the platform and power to clear their names publicly versus a regular who does not. As I said, it's arguable that this guy is a public figure.
Now if the CFO has any text messages or recordings of the escort threatening him if he didn't do what was asked then he has a case because that is extortion. However, if the escort never threatened him and instead just decided to out him for attention then he doesn't have, like I said before, a leg to stand on legally.
No, it's not. Prostitution is only legal in Nevada. Soliciting an advertised escort is illegal, period. And is considered illegal after a monetary transaction is made. Google it. |
It is NOT illegal for a private citizen to send money to another private citizen, regardless of their profession. Google it.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 12/10/2011
Posts: 12,699
|
Quote:
Originally posted by PoisonPill
It is NOT illegal for a private citizen to send money to another private citizen, regardless of their profession. Google it.
|
No, it's not illegal to send someone money, but It IS illegal to solicit a prostitute, which is what the case is here. Google it. Has nothing to do with public figure versus private figure.
__
People dragging Gawker for not revealing the escort don't understand how things work.
I'm a journalism major, so I learned about a lot of this in school.
There's something called the "Code of Ethics" in SPJ. A journalist is obligated to conceal the identity of a tea spiller. So, the Gawker writer had to. Of course the writer was clever enough to give away a sufficient amount of personal details on the escort and thus those in the know put two and two together and outted him anyway 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/4/2014
Posts: 8,486
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Retro
Priyanka Chopra, please tell me how exactly you think this is morally justifiable on the part of the escort. You still haven't done that. How is this okay? How is it at all okay to expose someone's sexuality to the entire world when it is their private information, their business? How is it justifiable to demand a service from someone and react like this when they become uncomfortable that you have stalked them and bail? How is it morally justifiable, furthermore, if the whole thing turns out to be bull? And don't hit me with the "cheating" line when we (still!) don't have any indication that's actually what happened.
|
I never argued that it was morally justifiable for the escort to send his texts to Gawker (or for them to publish it). If you go back to every response I gave, I said the escort is not obligated to keep the texts to himself and can do what he wants with them and that I don't feel sorry for a married man who participated in risky behavior like this. You responded admitting it's risky behavior, but said it's not in line for these consequences. Well, this isn't a court case where we determine the consequences. They just happen and he put himself in the position. What's next? Screaming moral depravity when a closeted married man is caught having sex with another man by a neighbor and then the neighbor tells and shows everyone? Yeah it's not nice, but that's all.
And give up with the "his wife knew and there was an arrangement" scenario you randomly made up! Not likely! You're really grasping here just like above where you wanted to believe it's a hoax. If you're going to use your morality angle, then it's completely fair to point out that a married man with children is looking for sex with escorts.
And not the other person saying that they never had sex and for all we know he just hired a gay escort for some company.
|
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 3/22/2012
Posts: 53,769
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Priyanka Chopra
I never argued that it was morally justifiable for the escort to send his texts to Gawker (or for them to publish it). If you go back to every response I gave, I said the escort is not obligated to keep the texts to himself and can do what he wants with them and that I don't feel sorry for a married man who participated in risky behavior like this. You responded admitting it's risky behavior, but said it's not in line for these consequences. Well, this isn't a court case where we determine the consequences. They just happen and he put himself in the position. What's next? Screaming moral depravity when a closeted married man is caught having sex with another man by a neighbor and then the neighbor tells and shows everyone? Yeah it's not nice, but that's all.
And give up with the "his wife knew and there was an arrangement" scenario you randomly made up! Not likely! You're really grasping here just like above where you wanted to believe it's a hoax. If you're going to use your morality angle, then it's completely fair to point out that a married man with children is looking for sex with escorts.
And not the other person saying that they never had sex and for all we know he just hired a gay escort for some company. |
You literally don't seem to understand, and I'm done trying. The slippery slope fallacy, hiding behind the legal implications... I guess you really do just think outing is okay.
By the way - you didn't merely point out that a married man with kids is seeking an escort, you assumed you had a clue about that marriage and judged him for it! 
And, um, male escorts are very often hired for company. Like we literally have members on ATRL who have done just that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
