Jennifer Lawrence NSFW

[Dr Nowt]

So it would be alright to stick a mirror under her skirt then?

Asking for a friend?

[Aventus]

Love to know what cigarette paper she's putting between moaning about her nude pics being leaked and doing a scene like that.

Because the leaked pictures didn't make her any money.

 

And the leaked pictures caused her to make less money from all future nude scenes, the value of her tits plummeted overnight.

[Strontium]

So it would be alright to stick a mirror under her skirt then?

 

Not quite the same, is it.

[Strontium]

Because the leaked pictures didn't make her any money.

Ding ding ding, we have a winner.

[Guest]

[Section_31]

Having a mare here SD

[Hand Shandy]

Having a mare here SD

Yep.

 

Her net worth is estimated at $110m.

 

Desperate for the money...

[Strontium]

She moans about money all the time! Not going to judge anyone for that, but it's hardly a matter of arch principle, is it.

[Hand Shandy]

I'm confused here.

 

Is the self proclaimed moral arbiter of TLW saying Jennifer Lawrence shouldn't complain about female actors being recompensed for their work equally to their male counterparts?

 

Because that's all I've seen her moan about in terms of money.

[Guest]

[Guest]

I'm confused here.

 

Is the self proclaimed moral arbiter of TLW saying Jennifer Lawrence shouldn't complain about female actors being recompensed for their work equally to their male counterparts?

 

Because that's all I've seen her moan about in terms of money.

Apparently she's not doing much filming this year in order to pursue 'political' avenues...probably these avenues

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUh6boBKCbA&t=364s

[Strontium]

I'm confused here.

 

Is the self proclaimed moral arbiter of TLW saying Jennifer Lawrence shouldn't complain about female actors being recompensed for their work equally to their male counterparts?

 

Because that's all I've seen her moan about in terms of money.

 

Self-proclaimed moral arbiter? LOL. I think you must have me confused with one of those folk who cares what other people do!

 

I am all for equal pay - you may recall I was one of the few members of the forum who supported the government that brought in mandatory reporting of gender pay gaps - but Jennifer Lawrence is a high earner no matter which way you want to cut it.

[Rico1304]

I think nudity is nudity. I think if you are going to make a song and dance about people seeing you naked, folk may raise an eyebrow if you then decide to put the whole show on display to every Tom, Dick and Harry who can stump up the cost of a cinema ticket.

So when you go to a shop to try on clothes you don’t close the curtain because you are naked in front of your missus?

 

Miles wrong here.

[Strontium]

Not a great allegory. More like, if I was a professional stripper, I wouldn't be too arsed if the shop assistant copped a cheeky eyeful.

[Numero Veinticinco]

Not a great allegory. More like, if I was a professional stripper, I wouldn't be too arsed if the shop assistant copped a cheeky eyeful.

 

 

Sorry, no. I can't be having that, Stronts. That's poor form. I already outlined the differences, which surely any liberal should by definition be supportive of. This, though, is wildly different from having your pictures hacked and given out against your consent vs presenting them with your consent. 

[Strontium]

Sorry, no. I can't be having that, Stronts. That's poor form. I already outlined the differences, which surely any liberal should by definition be supportive of. This, though, is wildly different from having your pictures hacked and given out against your consent vs presenting them with your consent.

 

I'm not saying it isn't different. But "wildly different"? Come on.

 

It's like libel law. Libel is always an offence, but you can only claim reputational damage if you have a reputation to damage. In a similar vein, someone who takes their clothes off for money clearly has less privacy to protect than someone who doesn't. This isn't rocket science.

[Rico1304]

Not a great allegory. More like, if I was a professional stripper, I wouldn't be too arsed if the shop assistant copped a cheeky eyeful.

So a hooker shouldn’t be bothered if a bloke just puts a bit of his dick in her (him)?

 

Wrong mate.

[KMD7]

So a hooker shouldn’t be bothered if a bloke just puts a bit of his dick in her (him)?

 

Wrong mate.

 

Beat me to it.  Not one of your best evenings SD mate

[Numero Veinticinco]

I'm not saying it isn't different. But "wildly different"? Come on.

 

It's like libel law. Libel is always an offence, but you can only claim reputational damage if you have a reputation to damage. In a similar vein, someone who takes their clothes off for money clearly has less privacy to protect than someone who doesn't. This isn't rocket science.

It's nothing like libel. It's like theft. Because that's what it was. Theft of her property vs consent. It isn't rocket science, which is why I'm so surprised at your view here. I urge you to take a step back, readjust your perspective, and think. You're normally on the market with matters of personal liberty but you're way off on this.

[Strontium]

So a hooker shouldn’t be bothered if a bloke just puts a bit of his dick in her (him)?

 

Wrong mate.

 

Come on, that's another terrible allegory.

[Strontium]

It's nothing like libel. It's like theft. Because that's what it was. Theft of her property vs consent. It isn't rocket science, which is why I'm so surprised at your view here. I urge you to take a step back, readjust your perspective, and think. You're normally on the market with matters of personal liberty but you're way off on this.

 

Sorry, it's not theft at all. If it was, then hacking would be a theft offence, and it isn't. The crime isn't theft of her property, it's violation of her privacy.

 

Oh, and of course it's like libel. In both instances, a victim is entitled to compensation.

[Pidge]

So you think there's a cigarette paper between a violation of privacy and her choice to perform naked in a major film production?

 

Sorry, I'm not seeing it...

[Rico1304]

I'm not saying it isn't different. But "wildly different"? Come on.It's like libel law. Libel is always an offence, but you can only claim reputational damage if you have a reputation to damage. In a similar vein, someone who takes their clothes off for money clearly has less privacy to protect than someone who doesn't. This isn't rocket science.

No it isnt.

[Strontium]

So you think there's a cigarette paper between a violation of privacy and her choice to perform naked in a major film production?

 

Sorry, I'm not seeing it...

 

What I said, and I thought I was pretty clear on this, was that a privacy violation is more serious when you have some privacy to be violated.

 

I'm not a lawyer, but even I know that it's an established legal principle that public figures have a diminished privacy interest.

[Rico1304]

What I said, and I thought I was pretty clear on this, was that a privacy violation is more serious when you have some privacy to be violated.

 

I'm not a lawyer, but even I know that it's an established legal principle that public figures have a diminished privacy interest.

Nope.