The Edge Posts Naked Photos Of Jennifer Lawrence Without Consent



Today the Edge website – owned by Media Works – published fully naked photographs of Jennifer Lawrence without her consent. Then when they found out there were legal actions pending and that it was a without-consent act, they still tried to share the photos by linking to images hosted elsewhere, because they do not care about consent.

It is not OK to publish naked media of any woman without her consent, full stop.

It was absolutely disgusting to see this on The Edge website in the wake of the Roastbusters incident which specifically involved without-consent publishing of media in order to “expose” women. If mainstream media outlets fail to have a basic comprehension of what consent is, how are the public supposed to understand? Celebrity-or-not every woman has the right to be protected from without-consent publishing of naked photos or similar.

The explicit private images were illegally stolen from Jennifer and released on website 4-Chan. Jennifer is taking legal action about the release of her photos, which clearly indicates how affected she has been by the incident. Complaints were made to The Edge – who were informed of the legal action but initially refused to act. When I spoke to representatives they said that they were within their rights and the photos would stay. It seemed at that time that all of the staff that I spoke to knew about the photos and were comfortable with them saying that “only one person has complained” so it was OK to leave them online. This was bearing in mind the photos had been up for only 3 hours at that stage. To me it seemed that Media Works would be unlikely to remove content unless there was public outrage, however this isn’t the right way to make a call about whether or not to publish. They should have prior-knowlege of what consent is and base their actions around it. If their staff don’t understand consent they should receive training on the issue.

TDB Recommends

This is an example of the same kind of cultural values that saw the Roastbusters incident occur. Displaying her photos without her consent is an example of rape culture; again we see the normalisation and trivilisation of without-consent behaviour. The Edge just see this as every-day “laddish” behaviour, and only uptight people complain, without considering that permission has to be at the core.

The images have now been removed after the public had plenty of time to copy and republish them, however the Edge decided they still wanted people to be able to see the photos – because it’s fun, right? – and they do not care about consent, so they issued a media article with links to the photos hosted elsewhere; which is a cynical and distressing response that still indicates they think it’s perfectly acceptable action to distribute stolen naked photographs without her permission.

It’s not good enough. Please let Media Works Know what you think about their inability to grasp the concept of permission: I also encourage you to call their sponsors.

Here is a basic guide for media:

Before you publish…

Did she consent? Yes? Publish if you choose.
Did she consent? No? Don’t publish.
Did she consent? Dunno? Ask or don’t publish.

Not that hard.

UPDATE: The Rock is still displaying the images and laughing about this kind of without-consent behaviour. Please let them know what you think, email:


  1. I called head office and politely asked to speak to the person responsible. I got transferred a few times and ended up with an answering machine. I called again, the receptionist told me there was no one higher up and she’d had countless calls from people abusing her. She pointed out that the images were already widely distributed on the net. I haven’t listened to my recording so can’t be sure of her exact words right now, but she did try to say she not part of the legal team. I said “So if I distributed nude photos of someone from your work, that would be okay?’. She said ‘that would be irresponsible of them (nude person), but I can’t really comment blah blah”.
    I thanked her for her time.

  2. This is the type of thing that causes suicide and social humilation. I’d expect MediaWorks to fire anyone who distributed these images.

    Just because someone is famous doesn’t mean consent is any less relevant than a young teenager.

    • Yes, those emails are in the public interest and revolve around public deception at a political level, including possible illegal activity. Naked photos that have been stolen and are of an individual who is entitled to a private life, are not in the public interest. End.

        • If she was in a film then yes, she has given consent for people to see her ( or more correctly, her character) naked.
          What part of she didn’t give consent to private pictures on the net don’t you get?
          Does your trolling get any better? This is a really bad attempt at it, you need to go back to school and ask a teenager how to piss people off on the net.

        • TNUC – your attempt at logic is deeply flawed. Conflating two unrelated issues to try to prove whatever point you’re attempting to make just makes you look very, very foolish.

          It’s a dishonest argument.

      • I would wager that more of the public are interested in these photographs than in Cam Slater’s emails. The “public interest” is too often defined as what the person using the term thinks that the public should be interested in.

        Surprised nobody has talked about this being a bad example for youth. We spend tens of thousands of dollars on net safe campaigns trying to persuade youth not to take intimate pictures of themselves for fear of exploitation and humiliation, but boneheaded adults won’t take the same advice.

        That goes double for people who send dick pics. Anthony Weiner’s privacy was no doubt violated, but people just laughed at him.

        In this day and age a prudent person doesn’t allow intimate photographs to be taken of them.

        • Tom what you are doing is a classic gaffe known as “victim blaming”. People are perfectly entitled to take photos of themselves for their own partners in private and store that on their own private digital devices (and password protected cloud storage). They have an expectation of safety that is legitimate.

          There is no public interest in this, no one needs to see her being “roasted” exposed/humiliated online without her consent.

          • People are also entitled to have their private emails kept private Jesse.
            You can’t argue for one and not the other.

            Did you write a blog complaining about the rape threats against the PMs daughter or do you believe anything ok if its against the right.

            I do agree that these photos are private but I don’t have several positions on what’s private as that would be hypocracy wouldn’t it.

            • Yes I can. One is in the public interest. One is not. It is not – legally speaking – in the public interest to see pictures of her naked. It is in the public interest to find out about potential criminal acts by politicians. Crime has no right to privacy.

          • Not really. It seems uou just don’t understand how morality works, as do most of the irrational people who go on about “victim blaming” without really thinking about what it means.

            Nobody is saying that these people are at moral fault for having their pictures hacked, just as people who leave their cars unlocked are not at moral fault if things are stolen from them. The fact that a door is unlocked doesn’t in any way diminish the culpability of the thief.

            Nevertheless, people owe it to themselves to be prudent. After all, I’m betting you lock your car and home when they are unattended. Your insurance company will give you a discount if you keep your car locked in a garage, etc.

            A prudential failure is not a moral failure – that’s the point that you and the rest of the people who go on about “victim blaming” don’t understand – there are different kinds of culpability. Ask any ethicist.

            This can be easily proven by comparing how we treat these failures. If you get away with a moral failing, such as successfully stealing property without being punished, people will insist that you ought to be punished for your transgression and that things won’t be right until you are punished. On the other hand, if you go into the wrong pub and escape without getting a hiding, no sane person is going to insist that you keep going back in until you get a beating to teach you a lesson. Hence, they’re different kinds of culpability because they warrant different responses.

            It’s obvious when you think about it.

  3. The Radio Network (Hauraki and 91 ZM) also posted the same images. I’m disgusted with the attitudes of the mainstream media (Chris Lynch of TRN’s TalkBack show is guilty of the most appaling slut shaming posts) and as usual will stick to intelligent and non sensationist stations like RDU 98.5 FM

  4. The best idea would be to lodge a complaint the Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA) possibly a complaint under the section Denigration and discrimination as broadcasting standards.

  5. Eemail the link containing the images to attention Liz Mahoney (Lawrence’s PR spokesperson) and explain you are doing so in full support of their legal action against those who post these images.

  6. […] The Rock, like many other Radio Network and Media Works radio stations yesterday posted illegally st… They did so with full knowledge that lawsuits were under way, they did so knowing that Jennifer granted NO CONSENT. The original photos were very obviously private and completely inappropriate for public distribution. They were stolen, and it is not her fault they were stolen, she had reasonable expectations of privacy. […]

  7. ha ha ha, get over it !! Take or get nude pictures taken of yourself and then putting it where i could be found, double dumb. It’s the digital age, anything about you can and will be found,especially if you make your money out of promoting your image.

    sorry, but if you don’t like it, don’t do it in the 1st place.

  8. Tacky, nasty and a network ought to knowconsent and publishing protocols. I’m over media knobs who try to justify after the damage is done…. silly little Edge really for sleazy tweeny boppers I hope she sues you

Comments are closed.