News Police probe tiger over topless photo

[gavaniacono]

On a side note, is anyone else OCD about the ribbon being twisted?

What ribbon?

 

[gavaniacono]

2016 - Chopsticksgate
2017 - Bigtitsgate

Could be another positive omen.

 

[fargothegreat]

Is the player Broady?

 

[UpTheTigs]

It's not a Richmond off-season without a woman trying to get a quick payout from a player...

#chopsticks #premiertits

 

[Punt rd end]

Under what law can he be charged and put onto the sex offender list? What a load of crock lol.

PS: If the player was any smart, or if his lawyer is any good, just say your phone was hacked, try proving that didn't happen

Yep, saved to the cloud and got hacked. Or left phone on table at party...........don't know what happened.

 

[Punt rd end]

BTW our friend snakebaker has become a legal "genius" on the main board

 

[mad_doggy911]

BTW our friend snakebaker has become a legal "genius" on the main board

QC Snake Baker.

 

[Punt rd end]

Media outlets appalled at player sharing photo as they share the photo nationally.

 

[SavDog23]

Media outlets appalled at player sharing photo as they share the photo nationally.

See. This is what make no ****ing sense. I'm sure the person in the photo wouldn't want to be shown on every news channel every 30 minutes.

 

[brahj]

BTW our friend snakebaker has become a legal "genius" on the main board

Not to side with Norf fans, but they would be pretty well versed in consent and the legalities after Majak Milne's incident. It's just a shame the Nork Smith medallist (TM) wasn't a cab driver or else we could have got the Norf cheer squad in court as subject matter experts.

 

[mcuzzy]

Media outlets appalled at player sharing photo as they share the photo nationally.

Most people hadn't even heard about the image, let alone seen it before these articles were published.

 

[wart101]

What player?

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[MagpieJoel]

out of curiosity what happened to fev?

Laws have changed since then.

 

[Mr Magic]

Does anyone know if the ladies in question are Richmond supporters? I suppose the one taking action probably is not...?

 

[Slavy1223]

Player in question is stupid as it was shared via Snapchat and the original had his Snapchat username on it the person circulating it has removed it.

 

[BC9_]

Player in question is stupid as it was shared via Snapchat and the original had his Snapchat username on it the person circulating it has removed it.

Umm how can the photo have a Snapchat username on it? Unless the photo was put onto a Snapchat story, which is doubtful, there would've been no username.

 

[Rance2Mewtwo]

Police probe tiger, tiger probed stripper, stripper probes the club for money.

 

[Mr Magic]

Police probe tiger, tiger probed stripper, stripper probes the club for money.

So what was the prohibition?

It is interesting if certain activities are looking for promotional value. For some businesses they could not buy this type of exposure!!!

 

[tigerz18]

Very disappointed with this development. Taken away from a massive premiership win. Hope the deal iscleared but if not, hopefully no jsil time and a MASSIVEslap on the wrist. Hope lessons are learned from this

 

[lysp]

Sorry to barge in.

The issue is simply - did she consent it to be distributed - yes or no. If the answer is no - that's it. An offence has been committed.

First half of discussion about the term "revenge pr0n" - twisting the definition does nothing. The term is just media created and an example of one reason the law may be used. Revenge and pr0n are not mentioned in it at all.

Whether she is a stripper or not is irrelevant. Regardless of what someone does for work, it does not come into factor at all. Plus try going into a strip club with a camera and take photos of breasts and see how far that gets you. You'll be kicked out immediately.

If someone distributes pictures on social media themselves - that is fine they have made that choice. They gave consent. If they have hundreds of naked pictures on social media and they send you a private one and you pass it on without consent - you are guilty of an offence too.

The reason Fev didn't come under this is because it was a recent change to the law, to make sure it was expressly defined in legislation. Basically stating the obvious to make sure people don't try and twist definitions of other parts of the law.

The law in question is:
SUMMARY OFFENCES ACT 1966 - SECT 41DA

And that states:

Distribution of intimate image

(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—​

(a) A intentionally distributes an intimate image of another person (B) to a person other than B; and

(b) the distribution of the image is contrary to community standards of acceptable conduct.​

Example A - person (A) posts a photograph of another person (B) on a social media website without B's express or implied consent and the photograph depicts B engaged in sexual activity.

(2) A person who commits an offence against subsection (1) is liable to level 7 imprisonment (2 years maximum).​

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to A if—

(a) B is not a person under the age of 18 years; and

(b) B had expressly or impliedly consented, or could reasonably be considered to have expressly or impliedly consented, to—​

(i) the distribution of the intimate image; and

(ii) the manner in which the intimate image was distributed.​

Anything outside this is irrelevant.

 

[Mr Magic]

Sorry to barge in.

The issue is simply - did she consent it to be distributed - yes or no. If the answer is no - that's it. An offence has been committed.

First half of discussion about the term "revenge pr0n" - twisting the definition does nothing. The term is just media created and an example of one reason the law may be used. Revenge and pr0n are not mentioned in it at all.

Whether she is a stripper or not is irrelevant. Regardless of what someone does for work, it does not come into factor at all. Plus try going into a strip club with a camera and take photos of breasts and see how far that gets you. You'll be kicked out immediately.

If someone distributes pictures on social media themselves - that is fine they have made that choice. They gave consent. If they have hundreds of naked pictures on social media and they send you a private one and you pass it on without consent - you are guilty of an offence too.

The reason Fev didn't come under this is because it was a recent change to the law, to make sure it was expressly defined in legislation. Basically stating the obvious to make sure people don't try and twist definitions of other parts of the law.

The law in question is:
SUMMARY OFFENCES ACT 1966 - SECT 41DA

And that states:



Anything outside this is irrelevant.

Actually, can the image be regarded as intimate??? I would argue its not intimate for starters.

If its intimate what say you topless bathers on the beach?

 

[PHX]

Sorry to barge in.

The issue is simply - did she consent it to be distributed - yes or no. If the answer is no - that's it. An offence has been committed.
. . . .

Good crystal clear info. Thanks for sharing.

 

[PHX]

Actually, can the image be regarded as intimate??? I would argue its not intimate for starters.

If its intimate what say you topless bathers on the beach?

Semantics.

Intimate means private and personal. This is a private and personal photo.

 

[Mr Magic]

Semantics.

Intimate means private and personal. This is a private and personal photo.

If its a stripper in the normal course of business its not private or personal.

Furthermore what if a child is exposed to private and personal torso on the beach by sunbathers? Surely the child can sue and the parents to!!!

 

[Mootsy]

Very disappointed with this development. Taken away from a massive premiership win. Hope the deal iscleared but if not, hopefully no jsil time and a MASSIVEslap on the wrist. Hope lessons are learned from this

Don't let one player effect the premiership enjoyment.