Mayor of my nearby town "caught nude".
Monday, December 15, 2003 by Matchbook | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
I live in Smithers, BC [Canada] - just 30 minutes from me is a town called Houston. The Mayor is, as of late, in some hot water over some pictures that are now circulating the internet of her posing nude for her husband, Tim. The clothe-less photos were snapped in her office, wearing ONLY her necklace.
Apparently someone had snooped on her computer, saved to disc and proceeded to send to EVERYONE - look around online, you'll find that story everywhere
The event was NOT a break-in, but rather a total breach of her in-home privacy.
Here's my question [just wondering what you people think here...]
What should happen to her? Should she be left alone, and sue the "thief"? Afterall, the photos were taken by her husband, for personal use and NOT for distribution.
OR should she stand down until the matter is resolved and face MORE public humiliation?
- just wondering..
Apparently someone had snooped on her computer, saved to disc and proceeded to send to EVERYONE - look around online, you'll find that story everywhere
The event was NOT a break-in, but rather a total breach of her in-home privacy.Here's my question [just wondering what you people think here...]
What should happen to her? Should she be left alone, and sue the "thief"? Afterall, the photos were taken by her husband, for personal use and NOT for distribution.
OR should she stand down until the matter is resolved and face MORE public humiliation?
- just wondering..
 |
|
Page 1 of 2 | |
|
|---|
Matchbook
Reply #2 Monday, December 15, 2003 4:56 AM
Reply #2 Monday, December 15, 2003 4:56 AM
The computer that held the photos was on the Mayor's HOME computer.. 
AndreasV
Reply #3 Monday, December 15, 2003 5:20 AM
Reply #3 Monday, December 15, 2003 5:20 AM
Any change of you posting the pictures? just kiddin
CoyoteMy
Reply #4 Monday, December 15, 2003 5:55 AM
Reply #4 Monday, December 15, 2003 5:55 AM
My opinion, it's none of our damned business what she does behind closed doors and with her husband.
It was a total invasion of privacy. I dunno why people are so upset over something like this, if they only knew what kinky sexual acts the Presient and his mistress/wife perform in the white-house.
In my opinion, I feel the person that stole the content off their computer should face swift and severe criminal charges. She should continue being mayor, the religious people need to grow-up when it comes to kinky sex, and of course, the townspeople and rest of the world needs to respect everyones privacy. Just because you become a key figure, doesn't mean you quit being "dirty". *sigh*
It was a total invasion of privacy. I dunno why people are so upset over something like this, if they only knew what kinky sexual acts the Presient and his mistress/wife perform in the white-house.
In my opinion, I feel the person that stole the content off their computer should face swift and severe criminal charges. She should continue being mayor, the religious people need to grow-up when it comes to kinky sex, and of course, the townspeople and rest of the world needs to respect everyones privacy. Just because you become a key figure, doesn't mean you quit being "dirty". *sigh*
BoXXi
Reply #5 Monday, December 15, 2003 5:57 AM
Reply #5 Monday, December 15, 2003 5:57 AM
That is ridiculous.... what the woman does in the privacy of her own home is nothing to do with the rest of the world. The person that stole the photos should be punished to the full extent of the law.
SuChiUomizu
Reply #6 Monday, December 15, 2003 6:00 AM
According to the yahoo news article I read about this awhile ago, the reason a big deal was made out of it was that like the first posts says, the picture was taken in the mayors office and it 'shamed the office of mayor' or something like that.
Reply #6 Monday, December 15, 2003 6:00 AM
| My opinion, it's none of our damned business what she does behind closed doors and with her husband. |
According to the yahoo news article I read about this awhile ago, the reason a big deal was made out of it was that like the first posts says, the picture was taken in the mayors office and it 'shamed the office of mayor' or something like that.
Matchbook
Reply #7 Monday, December 15, 2003 6:07 AM
Reply #7 Monday, December 15, 2003 6:07 AM
I agtee, she should be left alone, with the thief punished, in a just manner... Total invasion of privacy - Totally agree with Coyote and BoXXi here.... 
CoyoteMy
Reply #8 Monday, December 15, 2003 6:11 AM
Why should such an act shame the office of the Government? The mayors/governors mansion is nothing more than a temporary home. It should be treated as such. Afterall, what do the townspeople expect her and others to do? Whenever they have a moment of passion, should they drive down the block to a Motel 6?
The only people that see it as "shame" are those that think sex should be between a man and a woman, in bed, with the lights turned out, and with no communication between them OR think that the Office is supposed to be "pure" even though it's not.
Dunno, this really upsets me in a way. I'm not worried about the status of her mayor-ship, but what will become of her relationship with her husband now? This sorta thing could tear a marriage/true love apart.
Reply #8 Monday, December 15, 2003 6:11 AM
| According to the yahoo news article I read about this awhile ago, the reason a big deal was made out of it was that like the first posts says, the picture was taken in the mayors office and it 'shamed the office of mayor' or something like that. |
Why should such an act shame the office of the Government? The mayors/governors mansion is nothing more than a temporary home. It should be treated as such. Afterall, what do the townspeople expect her and others to do? Whenever they have a moment of passion, should they drive down the block to a Motel 6?
The only people that see it as "shame" are those that think sex should be between a man and a woman, in bed, with the lights turned out, and with no communication between them OR think that the Office is supposed to be "pure" even though it's not.
Dunno, this really upsets me in a way. I'm not worried about the status of her mayor-ship, but what will become of her relationship with her husband now? This sorta thing could tear a marriage/true love apart.
Tiggz
Reply #9 Monday, December 15, 2003 6:37 AM
Reply #9 Monday, December 15, 2003 6:37 AM
you mean to say that public officials have sex-lives?
and underneath their clothes they are completely naked?
you learn something every day...
and underneath their clothes they are completely naked?
you learn something every day...
crissy14
Reply #10 Monday, December 15, 2003 6:51 AM
I agree this is ridiculous! This post is ridiculous!! What a person does in thier own home is thier own business. I'ts bad enough that someone stole the pictures and is circulating them on the internet, and now even more people know about this because of this one post. You SpyderbyteGraphX are now just as guilty of invading this couples' privacy as the person who stole the pictures.
Reply #10 Monday, December 15, 2003 6:51 AM
| by Wizop BoXXi - 12/15/2003 5:57:01 AM That is ridiculous |
I agree this is ridiculous! This post is ridiculous!! What a person does in thier own home is thier own business. I'ts bad enough that someone stole the pictures and is circulating them on the internet, and now even more people know about this because of this one post. You SpyderbyteGraphX are now just as guilty of invading this couples' privacy as the person who stole the pictures.
Jafo
Reply #11 Monday, December 15, 2003 7:09 AM
Reply #11 Monday, December 15, 2003 7:09 AM
Crissy...therein lies a problem.
Whichever amendment of the American Constitution [5th, probably], not to mention other countries' privacy laws, etc would, rather DO protect Spyderbyte's right to post comment and/or news which is not covered by any 'gag notice' or similar [eg National Interest/Security].
The only 'criminal' act is the person who made unlawful use/access of this woman's computer.
This invasion of privacy, combined with its potential to do political and/or career harm would justify a massive damages suit in civil court and perhaps property theft in criminal court.
Put simply, the thief is scum....
Tiggz
Reply #12 Monday, December 15, 2003 7:27 AM
Reply #12 Monday, December 15, 2003 7:27 AM
I can see your point crissy, but on the other hand, as I can see nothing wrong in being naked I can't criticise the thread either, it's not as if SpyderbyteGraphX posted the pictures, he merely related the tale...the taboos surrounding nakedness and sex can only be reinforced by treating them as taboos...
but that's just me
but that's just me
crissy14
Reply #13 Monday, December 15, 2003 7:34 AM
Reply #13 Monday, December 15, 2003 7:34 AM
My point was not that Spyderbyte is legally guilty of any thing. Obviously he has the right to speak out. My point was is that, ethically and morally this post is wrong. It gives no consideration what-so-ever to this couple who are already probably, shamed and embarrased out of thier minds. Not only was the incident described, but the persons geographical location and public title was revealed. Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing, but one should think of how it will impact on a person. This is just my opinion of course, but it is a strong one.
Fuzzy Logic
Reply #14 Monday, December 15, 2003 7:49 AM
Reply #14 Monday, December 15, 2003 7:49 AM
The only crimes committed are the theft of property and the invasion of privacy. Being naked is not and should not be a crime.
Two people doing sexy things together sound pretty normal to me
Two people doing sexy things together sound pretty normal to me
crissy14
Reply #15 Monday, December 15, 2003 8:00 AM
I agree, so why all the public airing of this couples' business.?
Reply #15 Monday, December 15, 2003 8:00 AM
| by Scribe Fuzzy Logi |
| Being naked is not and should not be a crime. |
I agree, so why all the public airing of this couples' business.?
Fuzzy Logic
Reply #16 Monday, December 15, 2003 8:03 AM
Reply #16 Monday, December 15, 2003 8:03 AM
People with narrow minds find it sensational...sad
White_Moth
Reply #17 Monday, December 15, 2003 8:21 AM
Reply #17 Monday, December 15, 2003 8:21 AM
Theft is theft and should be prosecuted.
However, the images should not have been on a machine that is accessable by the public, especially if that machine is connected to the Internet or is networked. To do so, is like placing the photos on a cafe table and leaving them there for anyone to find.
There are many issues to be resolved here to say the least, but as I said, theft is theft.
However, the images should not have been on a machine that is accessable by the public, especially if that machine is connected to the Internet or is networked. To do so, is like placing the photos on a cafe table and leaving them there for anyone to find.
There are many issues to be resolved here to say the least, but as I said, theft is theft.
paxx
Reply #18 Monday, December 15, 2003 9:47 AM
Reply #18 Monday, December 15, 2003 9:47 AM
Hum, ok so I was curious about this story. I found it strange that anybody would care if anybody - mayor or not - would be caught naked at home.
So, actually, the story is a little different. Pictures of her, wearing only her ceremonial mayor necklace, and sitting in her leather chair in her Mayor office were found in her office's computer. The pictures were not takenj in the privacy of her home, but in the public place that is the official Mayor's office.
Now, there lies the difference. Of course, nobody had the right to take the pictures and publish them on the Net, but also, somebody can question the mayor's right to sit naked in her public office...
Matchbook
Reply #19 Monday, December 15, 2003 12:22 PM
I'm *just* as guilty? hehe Does this mean every news station, newspaper, newsletter, website that has covered this story should be prosecuted as well? If we're agreeing that I'm "just as guilty as the person who stole the pictures" - then that implicates every person/group/TV station that has covered this story as well. The person who stole the pictures *will* be charged wih theft, does this mean EVERYONE who posted/covered the story publicly will also be charged? - No? Then I'm not as guilty. I realize you back-tracked a little a few posts later, became pseudo-moralistic and chastised me for a lack of indiscretion in my post, but did that really buy you your pass into the pearly gates?
This would be like if you came down on people who covered the "Michael Jackson hanging his baby out the window" story. For all we know, he ALSO feels great remorse/shame about it. I guess we could sue the world, and the greater north american pop culture for this crime.
My point? I did nothing wrong, morally OR legally in asking people's opinions.. Don't you think the question has already been asked a million times by millions of other's seemingly north-america wide?
Besides, for all you know, I am on the mayor's side, and am seeing what the public thinks, bringing attention to matters like this to provide support for her. It seems from the response here, most people are in HER favor, and do NOT think she did anything shameful/bad. If anything, the Mayor should read this post, so if she *does* feel even a semblence of shame that she needen't. What she did was fine. It wasn't immoral IMO. It wasn't illegal, it wasn't even that kinky..hehe
Reply #19 Monday, December 15, 2003 12:22 PM
I'm *just* as guilty? hehe Does this mean every news station, newspaper, newsletter, website that has covered this story should be prosecuted as well? If we're agreeing that I'm "just as guilty as the person who stole the pictures" - then that implicates every person/group/TV station that has covered this story as well. The person who stole the pictures *will* be charged wih theft, does this mean EVERYONE who posted/covered the story publicly will also be charged? - No? Then I'm not as guilty. I realize you back-tracked a little a few posts later, became pseudo-moralistic and chastised me for a lack of indiscretion in my post, but did that really buy you your pass into the pearly gates? This would be like if you came down on people who covered the "Michael Jackson hanging his baby out the window" story. For all we know, he ALSO feels great remorse/shame about it. I guess we could sue the world, and the greater north american pop culture for this crime.
My point? I did nothing wrong, morally OR legally in asking people's opinions.. Don't you think the question has already been asked a million times by millions of other's seemingly north-america wide?
Besides, for all you know, I am on the mayor's side, and am seeing what the public thinks, bringing attention to matters like this to provide support for her. It seems from the response here, most people are in HER favor, and do NOT think she did anything shameful/bad. If anything, the Mayor should read this post, so if she *does* feel even a semblence of shame that she needen't. What she did was fine. It wasn't immoral IMO. It wasn't illegal, it wasn't even that kinky..hehe
crissy14
Reply #20 Monday, December 15, 2003 1:49 PM
Re-read post #13
[Message Edited]
Reply #20 Monday, December 15, 2003 1:49 PM
| 19 by Sir SpyderbyteGraphX - 12/15/2003 12:22:41 PM I'm *just* as guilty? |
Re-read post #13
[Message Edited]
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 1 of 2 | |
|
|---|
Reply #1 Monday, December 15, 2003 4:50 AM