Porn Wikileaks - Page 2

**scoundrel** · April 7th, 2011, 03:14 PM

Hypothetically, if a male porn actor (for the sake of the argument, lets call him John Holmes or Marc Wallice) is diagnosed with a lethal and incurable sexually transmitted disease, this terrible news is a private matter concerning his own life. But even then, I would argue that his sexual contacts have a right to be traced and told; they have been endangered.

What if John or Marc not only withholds the names of those who have had sexual relations with him, but proposes to carry on having unprotected sex in porn films with no-one knowing? What if John or Marc forges medical documents to claim that he has no sexually transmitted diseases and that it is safe for his female co-performers to engage in sexual acts with him? Is it right that this behaviour should be concealed from the world? Which has precedence: John/Marc's right to privacy or the right of other people to be warned and to have their health safeguarded?

I raise this hypothetical question for discussion. It is my own belief that the right to privacy ends as soon as you start to use your privacy in order to knowingly and recklessly endanger and harm other people. The public interest dictates otherwise.

However anyone who has behaved responsibly towards other people should not have their personal information published in such a way. That is both an affront to their rights and a plain downright miserable rotten trick to play on anyone.

**palo5** · April 7th, 2011, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scoundrel

What if John or Marc not only withholds the names of those who have had sexual relations with him, but proposes to carry on having unprotected sex in porn films with no-one knowing?

But someone does know - the place that diagnosed them. And the infected know it themselves, of course

If you know someone who's spreading a killer disease and you don't inform the authorities, you deserve a hard punishment imho - and mental treatment

mortmaru · February 20th, 2023, 02:19 PM

I know this is very old discussion.

Sharon Mitchell has receive what she deserved at the end of the day.

This women made up many lies and was the one that was telling people about others medical conditions. (She was the one who before she even knew he had HIV spread around about Marc Wallice)

This is a lady who was not even a qualified medical professional yet was implying she was.

The leak was not good at all and it doesn't matter which profession you are in no ones medical details should be public knowledge unless the individual chooses to allow this (In some situations for public health reasons as well)

The parties involved have been punished.

April 7th, 2011, 03:14 PM	#11
scoundrel Super Moderator Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: England Posts: 26,244 Thanks: 162,415 Thanked 278,561 Times in 26,187 Posts	Hypothetically, if a male porn actor (for the sake of the argument, lets call him John Holmes or Marc Wallice) is diagnosed with a lethal and incurable sexually transmitted disease, this terrible news is a private matter concerning his own life. But even then, I would argue that his sexual contacts have a right to be traced and told; they have been endangered. What if John or Marc not only withholds the names of those who have had sexual relations with him, but proposes to carry on having unprotected sex in porn films with no-one knowing? What if John or Marc forges medical documents to claim that he has no sexually transmitted diseases and that it is safe for his female co-performers to engage in sexual acts with him? Is it right that this behaviour should be concealed from the world? Which has precedence: John/Marc's right to privacy or the right of other people to be warned and to have their health safeguarded? I raise this hypothetical question for discussion. It is my own belief that the right to privacy ends as soon as you start to use your privacy in order to knowingly and recklessly endanger and harm other people. The public interest dictates otherwise. However anyone who has behaved responsibly towards other people should not have their personal information published in such a way. That is both an affront to their rights and a plain downright miserable rotten trick to play on anyone. __________________ To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

February 20th, 2023, 02:19 PM	#13
mortmaru Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 19 Thanks: 27 Thanked 63 Times in 16 Posts	I know this is very old discussion. Sharon Mitchell has receive what she deserved at the end of the day. This women made up many lies and was the one that was telling people about others medical conditions. (She was the one who before she even knew he had HIV spread around about Marc Wallice) This is a lady who was not even a qualified medical professional yet was implying she was. The leak was not good at all and it doesn't matter which profession you are in no ones medical details should be public knowledge unless the individual chooses to allow this (In some situations for public health reasons as well) The parties involved have been punished.