 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| All? |
|
|
|
 |
E
Joined: 05 May 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| think positive wrote: | | E wrote: | | think positive wrote: | | E wrote: | | David wrote: | Good to see The Daily Mail remaining on the pulse of the world’s really important events, as opposed to, say, trading in cheap titillation.
By the way, as much as I have no time for E’s victim-blaming arguments (obviously non-consensually sharing around nude photos of a sexual partner is a dog act, if that is indeed what has happened here), why isn’t anyone going after the media for doing exactly the same thing? Have they obtained consent from the person to share their photo? What makes that okay? |
she isnt a victim. she is actually a fame predator! |
You know this for a fact do You?
of course you don't, very judgmental. She may well have shown poor judgement but the tool who shared an intimate photo still made her a victim |
i agree, it was perhaps a bit harsh. However, we all know those certain types of girls that chase footy players. not saying for sure she is that type of person, but it is kind of unusual to be in that situation where you are naked with a footy players medal around your neck in front of someone you don't know very well. The signs are not good for her in terms of not being that type of person.
Having said that, has she landed a modelling contract yet? she reminds me of Teri Hatcher in Seinfeld ... |
I don’t care what “type of person” she is. Stripper, prostitute, silly drunk teenager, girlfriend, wife, bit on the side, one night stand, doesn’t matter.
Fairly obvious she consented to the photo being taken but did she say ‘you can send it to Fred, Barney and the clown that won the Brownlow??’
Obviously by her complaint, She believed he wouldn’t do that or had deleted the image, I suppose now you’ll say she changed her mind.
When do you apply judgment to the person who pressed ‘send’?
Her Facebook profile has apparently been shared now too, so not anonymous for long.
Personally I don’t find the photo offensive at all, you see that much everywhere, but if the woman did not want it spread around and made that clear, it never should have happened. Even if not made clear, for the pedantic, without permission you don’t share, simple.
In saying that I’ve still drummed into my girls ‘don’t pose for any kind of naked pics for anyone’. I guess I have trust issues! |
not trust issues. good judgment. If you agree to let a close friend take this type of photo for fun, that's one thing. i would feel sorry if such a girl was betrayed in this way. To pick up a drunk footballer while he thinks he is a GOD for winning a premiership in Melbourne and then think that he is going to listen to you when you ask him not to show his mates your perfect rack is just really poor judgment. Why do you think he asked to take the photo? So he could delete it. yeah, right!!
she is guilty of being a moron at the very least.
Understand that i am taking it as a given that the player is an asshole and shouldnt have done it. of course that is true. But seriously, in what universe does the fact pattern she consented to not result in the consequences that she claims to have sought to prevent.
_________________
Ohhh, the Premiership's a cakewalk ....... |
|
|
|
|
Woods 
Joined: 21 Aug 2013
Location: Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
The young woman’s complaint to the police might not be motivated by her fear and shame at discovering that the picture has had a wide circulation on social media, but perhaps from her commercial loss from not being paid for its publication.
If she was a hired in to the Richmond GF after-party through an agency as a ‘party girl for hire’ (eg. topless waitress etc) then she makes her living from selling her body image to admiring customers (ordinary clad waitresses are cheap – but you pay overs for top-less). That’s fair enough; it’s her occupation (she might also be available for nude magazine and calendar shoots at higher prices). Her point of view might be that if you want to take a private pic, that’s OK. But if you want to publish it, then pay up because that’s my living.
Going to be an interesting day in court (if it comes to that) if the Tiger player’s defence lawyer argues that she is attempting to use the ‘revenge-porn’ law to prosecute a case of commercial loss. |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw 
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^ I'm not sure why you say that. Her motive (whatever it may be) for complaining is irrelevant to the question whether an offence was committed.
Of course, she wouldn't be using the "revenge-porn" law under any circumstances - the State prosecutes, not the complainant. |
|
|
|
|
Woods
Joined: 21 Aug 2013
Location: Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Pies4shaw wrote: | ^ I'm not sure why you say that. Her motive (whatever it may be) for complaining is irrelevant to the question whether an offence was committed.
Of course, she wouldn't be using the "revenge-porn" law under any circumstances - the State prosecutes, not the complainant. |
Yeah, you are right. But according to news reports she made the complaint to police citing the new ‘revenge porn’ law. And she would be the prime witness for the state if it goes to court.
On your other point, it’s not just by sending a nude image of someone against their wishes and you have committed an offence under the new law.
The new offence of Distribution of intimate image contained in section 41DA of the Summary Offences Act prohibits the “intentional distribution of an intimate image where that distribution is contrary to community standards of acceptable conduct”
http://www.cla.asn.au/News/victoria-passes-sexting-laws/#_ftn4
So it would be up to the judge to decide if a breach of “community standards of acceptable conduct” has occurred.
It seems to be acceptable to the community that strip joints exist where female lap dancers and top-less waitresses ply their trade. And there are pics and videos of these places publically available on the internet. It could be argued that if a woman who has worked in these places complains that a top-less picture of her has been distributed on social media then there has not been a breach community standards. Of course, if the woman is not involved in this industry none of this applies.
The new law has been called ‘revenge porn’ or ‘sexting’ law’ because the intention of Parliament was mainly to make it illegal for men in broken relationships to humiliate their ex partners by posting explicit pics on social media. That is certainly against community standards, I would think. Not sure if posting a snap of a stripper at a buck’s night is the same thing. Although the new law does aim at protecting privacy. I haven’t seen the original Tigers pic so don’t know if it showed her face and therefore identified her. If so, the player might be gone. But the law is new so this will be one of its early test cases if it goes to court.
Last edited by Woods on Thu Oct 12, 2017 4:47 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| It could be true. |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Woods wrote: | | Pies4shaw wrote: | ^ I'm not sure why you say that. Her motive (whatever it may be) for complaining is irrelevant to the question whether an offence was committed.
Of course, she wouldn't be using the "revenge-porn" law under any circumstances - the State prosecutes, not the complainant. |
Yeah, you are right. But according to news reports she made the complaint to police citing the new ‘revenge porn’ law. And she would be the prime witness for the state if it goes to court.
On your other point, it’s not just by sending a nude image of someone against their wishes and you have committed an offence under the new law.
The new offence of Distribution of intimate image contained in section 41DA of the Summary Offences Act prohibits the “intentional distribution of an intimate image where that distribution is contrary to community standards of acceptable conduct”
http://www.cla.asn.au/News/victoria-passes-sexting-laws/#_ftn4
So it would be up to the judge to decide if a breach of “community standards of acceptable conduct” has occurred.
It seems to be acceptable to the community that strip joints exist where female lap dancers and top-less waitresses ply their trade. And there are pics and videos of these places publically available on the internet. It could be argued that if a woman who has worked in these places complains that a top-less picture of her has been distributed on social media then there has not been a breach community standards. Of course, if the woman is not involved in this industry none of this applies.
The new law has been called ‘revenge porn’ or ‘sexting’ law’ because the intention of Parliament was mainly to make it illegal for men in broken relationships to humiliate their ex partners by posting explicit pics on social media. That is certainly against community standards, I would think. Not sure if taking a snap of a stripper at a buck’s night is the same thing. Although the new law does aim at protecting privacy. I haven’t seen the original Tigers pic so don’t know if it showed her face and therefore identified her. If so, the player might be gone. But the law is new so this will be one of its early test cases if it goes to court. |
It'll be a magistrate, not a judge - and the magistrate will have no difficulty whatsoever in deciding that the distribution (that is the act of distributing the image, rather than the content of the image itself) was "contrary to community standards of acceptable conduct". |
|
|
|
|
Woods
Joined: 21 Aug 2013
Location: Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| ^ I used 'judge' in lower case. As such it is a synonym for magistrate. |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| ^ Not where I come from, it isn't. |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Someone asks to take a photo, you consent, then ask them to delete it.
Why would you take a photo and then delete it, unless it's a shit photo? Can you see better looking at the phone screen?
Stupid to pose for it in the first place, as stupid as the AFL players sending dick pics or anyone sexting in the first place.
having said that, she has a right to be pissed off that it was shared, but that photo is from a different situation to what the revenge porn legislation was intended to cover.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
E
Joined: 05 May 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Pies4shaw wrote: | | ^ Not where I come from, it isn't. |
You guys are have a dumb conversation about semantics and its totally unrelated to the OP.
i have so little sympathy for this woman. I think she really ought to shut up and smarten up.
Having said that, Woods makes a great point. If she is in the business of marketing that rack, then she is entitled to seek compensation for its dissemination.
_________________
Ohhh, the Premiership's a cakewalk ....... |
|
|
|
|
ronrat
Joined: 22 May 2006
Location: Thailand
|
| Post subject: | |
|
So if she appears in Penthouse or similar for money does this player if prosecuted and found gulty have a right to sue for his share of money as he was boosting her image and thus she gained commercially.
It didn't do Kim Duthie any harm.
AllI can say is that photo was not taken at the Royal.
_________________
Annoying opposition supporters since 1967. |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^
Smells like a payoff to me.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
ronrat
Joined: 22 May 2006
Location: Thailand
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Maurice and Blackmailers involved. Ambulance chasers R Us. Not only a payoff involved. Probably less harm done than setting fire to a dwarf I suppose.
_________________
Annoying opposition supporters since 1967. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
