Discussion in 'Richmond Ramblings' started by Ned, Oct 10, 2017.
Correct. Refer my earlier response to Sash.
@Vines is correct. The law on transmission of intimate image (s) is a law of breach of acceptable community standards. The impact of the distribution on the person is only one aspect of the degree of the breach
But the plaintiff would have to be identified by the general public.
A photograph without the face is an anonymous picture whose identity is known only to a coterie.
"Sexting" in its most serious case would require public identification of a person designed for maximum exposure and ridicule.
This case would probably be at the lower end of the spectrum, if found guilty.
A community service order, or something similar, perhaps 200 hours' working at a women's domestic violence centre.
If the person that distributed it in the first place named the girl...it automatically becomes 'public'. Just because 'we' don't know her name, her naked photo was distributed without consent which immediately breaks the sexting law.
There's a lot of unknowns in all this but I see the thread in its current form as a discussion about the law itself not the specific case.
In terms of "sexting", there would be degrees of severity.
It is not one size fits all as circumstances change.
The most severe "sexting" case would probably require two factors, I would presume.
The first criteria would involve publishing a fully identifiable portrait including the person's face.
The second criteria would include publishing the picture on a mainstream media platform intended for mass distribution, now referred to in the industry as the "ecosystem".
If those two criteria are met then the perpetrator would probably face prison time.
So the original photo taker sent it on - to how many people? Then who sent it out further? They also need to wake up to themselves.
its a wake up call for all concerned
the laws have been put in place to stop evil acts from people in our society
at this stage we don't know , but suspect , it was a harmless spur of the moment thing , in the heat of GF celebrations if you will
all involved , including the woman , may not have been thinking clearly as they normally do
but if prosecuted to the letter of the law a person or several people could end up in serious trouble
and a possible long lasting thing on the woman concerned mightn't be pretty either "you were the one that got those footballers in trouble..."
that could hang around for a long time , so in the end no winners :-(
Broadly speaking, just don't tell me the Butler did it!
I have no inside info, just a play on words.....
The girl's name was public knowledge about 10 minutes after the photo was.
FFS people take themselves so seriously these days!
What did the woman in question think was going to come of doing the photo - something good??? Errors in judgement and lessons learned all around, moving on I would hope...
I'm in the public and it's not part of my knowledge!
I've declined to comment on this situation because I just don't have enough information. There are lots of ifs and buts (1 t only though) here and while assumptions are dangerous if this image was taken with permission but distributed without it someone will be in strife.
While I'm not suggesting that this is the case here it is possible that the lass in question may have been really taken advantage of. It's also possible, and again I'm not suggesting that this is the case, that she's taking advantage of the situation or put herself in the situation with the knowledge that she might be able to exploit the situation.
There's way too many facets of this that call for an assumption so for the moment I'm not going to call for anyone (the player involved or the lass photographed) to be hung, drawn and quartered. One thing that's certain is that letting this image be seen by more than just the photographer or the person in it was extremely stupid. No good was going to come from such distribution.
Either way though this is a very poor situation and should serve as yet another precautionary tail for parents to use when talking to stupid young people about the possible ramifications of being young and stupid with a camera and untrustworthy mates.
Bullshit!!!!! Bullshit!!!! Bullshit!!!!
Mistakes get made, people win premierships and get loose, stupid shit happens, FFS, why are people so off there head about the moral make up of this all. Yes, Jeep and Puma will drop the 2017 Premiers who happen to be the biggest sporting team in Australia and have their emblems displayed everywhere because 2 drunk people made stupid drunken choices and people want to start pushing band wagons again. You can't be serious!
Don't cry 'poor bugger me' when you make the choice to get your boobs out and put a medal on them with a camera present. It was stupid by the 2 involved and should serve as a lesson for all for sure. The player shouldn't have sent them on, yes, but to say that it is an abnormal or abhorrent act is showing true ignorance to what is the unfortunate norm among young people these days. It is the norm of this generation rather than the exception and I know this because I have interviewed tens of thousands of young people and it is very disturbing as to what they consider to be common practice and interactions.
If this woman pushes for greater education among young people around producing compromising images of themselves or others and then sending them on, then I am 100% supportive because it worries me what poor choices + technology can do. If this turns out to be a witch hunt opportunity to throw dirt at player and club, get your 15 minutes of fame or to sue for damages, then I have my concerns.
I did not say Jeep and other companies would immediately withdraw sponsorship.
I said such incidents are damaging to sponsorship and the image of football as family friendly.
Footballers have an elite status in society: Australia, Europe and the United States. We do not begrudge them that.
But with an elite status comes responsibility.
The players must be trained in the use and potential abuse of digital and social media.
Incidents like "chopstick gate" shows how many in the media are happy to horse draw and 1/4 someone with one sided "facts" that sometimes are proven malicious and bogus.
I don't think anyone has been charged yet, so any comments are just speculation.
The media knows sensationalist stories boost circulation.
Front page of the Herald-Sun for consecutive days.
Joint culpability in my opinion...then again ..I don't live in the Nanny state !!!
If ever the Australian Opals win an Olympic Gold Medal I will make sure that I don't dangle a medal around my d*** and allow someone to take a photo of me. If I do I'll make it VERY clear that the photo is NOT to be shown to anyone (good luck there!)
That's an interesting facet because I'd argue that such wording allows this law to be adaptable/fluid in nature. What is acceptable now may not have been 1987. Also, what is not acceptable now may be in 2027. Community attitudes change all the time. Remember once that Tattoos were for sailors, convicts and members of motorcycle clubs. Now it seems that your a little bit outnumbered if you don't have one (I'm outnumbered).
With younger folk now more desensitized to the display of nudity through a prevalence on TV etc attitudes may slowly change. Just remember that in the 1980s Mel Gibson's character Martin Riggs had his dialogue altered for TV release. On he TV he could be heard to say "we'll get these funsters" rather than use the word that they would no longer bother sensoring these days. Such attitudes re poor language relaxed which meant that it could be heard more via the TV and now the younger generation can't speak without the use of such words.
I think that the old 'her fault for taking the photo' line isn't a huge leap from 'she was raped because of what she was wearing'.
Separate names with a comma.