 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| sixpoints wrote: | | David wrote: | | Apparently she has complained and the police are investigating (which means, I presume, they know who the player responsible is). Unless they’re looking to make an example of someone, though, I doubt much will come of it – I mean, as ‘revenge porn’ legislation goes, this hardly qualifies as ‘porn’. There are some in the more progressive parts of society who are seeking to make public toplessness legal, after all. Give the player a slap on the wrist, get them to apologise to the woman wronged and then ask, again, why the media is permitted to distribute photos like these to a far wider audience than they would have otherwise received. |
The legislation is not about porn.
The legislation is about the distribution of Intimate Images of a person without the person's consent.
Intimate Images are defined as;
"..a moving or still image that depicts -
(A) a person engaged in sexual activity, or
(B) a person in a manner or context that is sexual, or
(C) the genital, or anal region of a person or in the case of a female, the breasts."
It is a Summary Offence to distribute the kind of images currently being discussed. The images depicted are clearly covered by this law.
Since it is an offence, the onus is on a person to NOT distribute such images without clear consent.
The images are out and the person depicted is claiming they are without their consent. It is no hanging offence, but it is definitely an offence by law nonetheless. |
Which makes for an interesting discussion about breasts.
I understand why the young lady in question would be pissed off at the photo being shared but on one hand you have a movement to de-sexualise breasts and on the other hand this kind of legislation.
Under that law, I assume a media outlet would need express permission before publishing a photo of a woman breast feeding in public (like, oh, a parliamentarian for example). Can Helen D'Amico press charges against a footy show that shows her streaking in 1982 wiithout her express consent now?
Every woman with cleavage would have experienced at one time or another the frustration of not being able to make eye contact during a conversation with a man, but surely there's something wrong with this argument, or is there a context?
Personally I've never experienced a set of (female) breasts I didn't like and I've been a keen connoisseur since the 70's watching Delvene Delaney on Hoges, and watching The Box, No. 96 and Alvin Purple on TV. 
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
 |
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| E wrote: | | Harrysz wrote: | Sixpoints speaks with truth and clarity.
E wants to blame the victim. If the woman didn't consent to the dissemination of the image, then it's a criminal offence. This has nothing to do with political correctness. |
the real crime is concealing her perfect breasts. I cant believe that it is legal to put those black dots on the photo. heads should roll.
Cant we please move on. Everyone should get to enjoy her perfect form. She owes it to us at the very least. |
Are you like this in real life? 
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Do you mean you and me? I don't want to move on. |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| HAL wrote: | | Do you mean you and me? I don't want to move on. |
Show us your tits.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Is that what you meant to say? |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Yes. You're a bot. Do you wear the mechanical style conical bra with rivets down the sides?
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Only when I dress up. |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Hehe well done Hal!
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| I get it. Used that til he well done Hal. |
|
|
|
|
AN_Inkling
Joined: 06 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| 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? |
It's not ok and some outlets have refused to show the image.
@Wokko the woman has said that she did not consent to the sharing of the image.
_________________
Well done boys! |
|
|
|
|
E
Joined: 05 May 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| 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 ...
_________________
Ohhh, the Premiership's a cakewalk ....... |
|
|
|
|
E
Joined: 05 May 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| 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? |
I see you are a Trump voter. Everything is the media's fault, eh? I didn't see the media publish a naked breast. it looked censored in a legal way to me with the black squares. women appear in public with less clothes on than those black squares OFTEN! Media did nothing wrong.
_________________
Ohhh, the Premiership's a cakewalk ....... |
|
|
|
|
Culprit 
Joined: 06 Feb 2003
Location: Port Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Every person that has shared that picture has committed and offence. |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| 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!
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
Woods 
Joined: 21 Aug 2013
Location: Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
You've all been duped.
That's a picture of Neil Balme's man boobs. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
