News Police probe tiger over topless photo

[tigerdan]

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.

Looks like he will get off then.

 

[ComfortablyNumb]

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?

What do topless bathers have to do with this and why are you taking and sharing photos of said topless bathers?

 

[PHX]

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!!!

You're simply trying to be difficult and not being realistic to the facts we know.

I understand we're programmed to defend our players to the hilt but now isn't the time.

 

[Mr Magic]

What do topless bathers have to do with this and why are you taking and sharing photos of said topless bathers?

Who said I am taking and sharing photos of topless bathers???

I am not even near a beach FFS!!!

The point is a photo and distribution is semantics surely, rather its about the vision.

So if the photo is intimate then a bather being topless on a beach must also be intimate and therefore anyone on a beach that unwittingly sees it would surely be able to sue due to the exposed vision!

Otherwise people walking down the street captured by CCTV can sue the local council for unwanted video capture and distribution!!!

 

[Mr Magic]

You're simply trying to be difficult and not being realistic to the facts we know.

I understand we're programmed to defend our players to the hilt but now isn't the time.

I detest politics at all times!!!

 

[Punt rd end]

 

[Mr Magic]

I think the presentation of the premiership medallions with the Richmond footy club gives me great happiness!!!

 

[I Rock]

Evenf if there was not any malice involved (and if it was shown to be a Player that leaked the photo) it was a stupid thing to do. Nothing good would come of it once the images went public.

 

[I Rock]

Otherwise people walking down the street captured by CCTV can sue the local council for unwanted video capture and distribution!!!

I'm no Lawyer, however I don't think that's possible in a public area or entering a private establishement (bar etc) that states they use CCTV/Cameras etc. Different if it was in a private location like the pub toilet or hotel room where you don't know you are being filmed.

 

[Heisenberg_]

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!!!

Strict rules of no pictures to be taken when you're at the strippers.

 

[ComfortablyNumb]

Who said I am taking and sharing photos of topless bathers???

I am not even near a beach FFS!!!

The point is a photo and distribution is semantics surely, rather its about the vision.

So if the photo is intimate then a bather being topless on a beach must also be intimate and therefore anyone on a beach that unwittingly sees it would surely be able to sue due to the exposed vision!

Otherwise people walking down the street captured by CCTV can sue the local council for unwanted video capture and distribution!!!

But that's an entirely different thing, if you're going to a topless beach then you should be aware that people will be topless there and it isn't illegal.
Also this is about a naked photo of a women being shared, if you're captured on CCTV naked then you're probably already breaking public indecency laws anyway.

 

[cannot]

BLOODY HELL GRIGG

 

[Stiubhart]

Other Clubs have Mad Monday's , we have Mamms Monday...

 

[BC9_]

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.

Well said, best post in this thread.

 

[Unknown Identity]

BLOODY HELL GRIGG

??

Are you saying it was Grigg!?

 

[cannot]

??

Are you saying it was Grigg!?

no

yet

wouldnt be the first time he has let the team down

 

[SunshineBoy]

I heard Helen worked up in Darwin though or NT and was suggested to come down.

It is an interesting one if the stripper links are true because this type of thing is not uncommon in the sense things can get shared rightly or wrongly sometimes via accident. They have a network and can talk. Sometimes to the point, and one may see this on webcams, specific disclaimers and clauses are put in about the proliferation of material because most are fully aware of what can happen from professional experience. The point is if she was a stripper she had reason to know fully the situation to the point where allowing a photo to be taken would be surprising ignoring other motives, and unless she was a full blown pornstar where any notoriety was good for business and she was in the public domain in questionable situations regardless anyway, it is highly doubtful, with the sexting environment of teens these days as well, the lady could have been ignorant of the risks regardless of any intentions of conduct proven or otherwise in allowing someone else take a photo of her displaying images she was not content with.

nah mate she was working at the crazy horse in Adelaide as a contortionist I may have allegedly seen a poster in Adelaide sometime in july 82...

allegedly.....and just a poster

 

[tigerdan]

But that's an entirely different thing, if you're going to a topless beach then you should be aware that people will be topless there and it isn't illegal.
Also this is about a naked photo of a women being shared, if you're captured on CCTV naked then you're probably already breaking public indecency laws anyway.

She's not naked. PM someone for a look at the pic and force your eyes to look south.

Reminds me of the Rolling Stones scandal in the 60s where the police busted in the room to find 'A naked woman wearing only a towell'. Was argued that if she was wearing a towell then she was not in fact naked. They got off.

 

[cannot]

She's not naked. PM someone for a look at the pic and force your eyes to look south.

Reminds me of the Rolling Stones scandal in the 60s where the police busted in the room to find 'A naked woman wearing only a towell'. Was argued that if she was wearing a towell then she was not in fact naked. They got off.

the best type of correct

Rance also should be up there with Houli.

how funny would it be if it were Bacha

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

I am sure the police are looking into / at the photo.

 

[joelsyt]

Rance also should be up there with Houli.

Cotch, Dusty and Jack as well. Trust me if it were any of our big 4 it'd be all over the news. They're too big a names for it to stay quiet.

 

[tigerz18]

What woukd be a saving grace would be if no face was shown, it's only chest, no s3x. And the intent is not to embarrass the girl. It's still bad but not as bad as it could be

 

[tigerz18]

My market for the mystery Richmond player would be Martin $3, Broad $3.50, Ellis $5, Caddy $5, Graham $8 , Houli $1000 any other player- $8.

What about dimma?

 

[joelsyt]

Can't believe we're stil arguing over the legalities. If he's shared without consent then it's wrong and he should be punished accordingly. That's what it comes down to.

 

[Mr Magic]

Strict rules of no pictures to be taken when you're at the strippers.

That is true but I think you find cameras are in the sites although not in the toilets like the pubs.

Also cameras in and out of the pubs are obvious apart from the toilets