Jennifer Lawrence’s Vanity Fair cover doesn’t hint at hypocrisy

Over Labor Day weekend, hackers released private photos of several female celebrities to the public. Dozens of public figures were tied to this illegal photo hack, including Kate Upton, Ariana Grande and Vanessa Hudgens. The face of this ongoing case, however, is Jennifer Lawrence, who received the brunt of media coverage and scrutiny. Though Lawrence initially treated this incident with nonresponse, she broke her silence in an interview with Vanity Fair last Wednesday. Though the cover of Lawrence posing topless in a swimming pool might seem hypocritical, Lawrence did well in underscoring that releasing nude photos is a matter of consent.

In her sit-down with the magazine, Lawrence spoke with fire about the massive intrusion on her privacy. “It is not a scandal. It is a sex crime,” Lawrence said. “It is a sexual violation. It’s disgusting. The law needs to be changed, and we need to change.”

Though it is clear the hackers invaded very personal territory, many questioned the relevancy of Lawrence’s statement. According to the Los Angeles Times, critics of Lawrence’s story say she overexaggerated the situation, calling the Vanity Fair cover hypocritical. In actuality, Lawrence has championed the necessity for consent when publishing any material owned by someone else.

The past few years have been the Jennifer Lawrence golden age. At 20, she was nominated for her first Academy Award. At 22, just two years ago, she became one of the youngest recipients of the Academy Award for Best Actress. On the box office front, she has brought in billions in revenue for The Hunger Games and X-Men franchises. On top of all that, given the amount of “J-Law” pandemonium circulating the public over the past couple of years, I understand the curiosity surrounding her personal life.

Yet, even though Lawrence has found her way into the public eye, she is not a public commodity. Her pictures, or any part of her personal life for that matter, should not be a domain occupied by Internet perverts looking to auction off  illicit photos for Bitcoins. The public, in turn, should not empower these gross actions by viewing these photos.

An example that actually refutes some of the criticism Lawrence has received is her cover photo on Vanity Fair, where Lawrence wears nothing but a diamond necklace while wading nude in the water. Lawrence allowed these photos to be released, so contrary to her critics, it can’t be a hypocritical act because she consented to the publication of the photo. Consent, here, is the fine line that creates a difference between a powerful image and something that is indeed a sex crime.

Perhaps this incident reveals our worryingly apathetic attitude toward privacy. The standard seems to be changing — now anyone can be a publisher of information, posting anything for the Internet to see. Some of this content is unnecessary or inappropriate. Users with profiles are able to be judges of this content with a simple “like” — a mere click of a button. Information seems to be free, but this is not the mindset we should have. Information is a tool that can  be manipulated to harass and depreciate the dignity of others, as these female public figures have shown.

But there is a silver lining in this playbook. By gracing the cover of Vanity Fair, Lawrence refuses to act as a silent victim in this saga. She steers the energy toward our actions and values because Jennifer Lawrence is right: We need to change.
Danni Wang is a sophomore majoring in psychology. Her column, “Pop Fiction,” runs Mondays.