Rumour Rumors of cat player in big trouble

[Keeeeepithushhh]

Surprised there is no thread (and its not the one that names a player). Been told he may never play again once the story breaks.

Lots of strange stuff going on at the moment.

I can confirm that a Geelong player has already been to court and has more appearances scheduled in the coming months. Out of respect for the legal process and privacy, I won’t name the player or share further details at this time.

 

[mighty_lions]

I can confirm that a Geelong player has already been to court and has more appearances scheduled in the coming months. Out of respect for the legal process and privacy, I won’t name the player or share further details at this time.

you are a genius, why would u go to the time an effort to create a profile to write that

 

[craffles]

you are a genius, why would u go to the time an effort to create a profile to write that

I reckon Nick Butler needed another burner after mightypowerrrr was outed.

 

[mightypowerrrr]

Nick Butler should have made AFL

 

[Bald]

I can confirm that a Geelong player has already been to court and has more appearances scheduled in the coming months. Out of respect for the legal process and privacy, I won’t name the player or share further details at this time.

That was confirmed 20 pages ago, friend.

 

[lusheslewis]

Are the details of the suppression order published anywhere? If not, how could anyone be expected to comply with a secret court order?

Hypothetically, what would happen if someone who knew details of the case/allegations shared them with me and I posted them here, or on social media or somewhere else?

Is BigFooty admin aware of any suppression order? If so how?

 

[Muddiemoose]

Are the details of the suppression order published anywhere? If not, how could anyone be expected to comply with a secret court order?

Hypothetically, what would happen if someone who knew details of the case/allegations shared them with me and I posted them here, or on social media or somewhere else?

Is BigFooty admin aware of any suppression order? If so how?

It’s to do with laws in Victoria that prevent information being published that could lead to the identification of the victim of a sexual related crime

It’s not a secret it’s a blanket act that covers all such cases in Victoria

County Court of Victoria

Victoria's principal trial court hears and determines criminal, common law and commercial matters.

www.countycourt.vic.gov.au

 

[cats_09]

Are the details of the suppression order published anywhere? If not, how could anyone be expected to comply with a secret court order?

Hypothetically, what would happen if someone who knew details of the case/allegations shared them with me and I posted them here, or on social media or somewhere else?

Is BigFooty admin aware of any suppression order? If so how?

It's not a secret order by the basic fact that when the story broke last month, the following details were included in all published articles & news reports:

'For legal reasons the player cannot be identified and any further details of the alleged offending cannot be made public'


It's been made quite clear that there's a suppression order in place - ignorance to that isn't an excuse

 

[tora tora tora]

It’s to do with laws in Victoria that prevent information being published that could lead to the identification of the victim of a sexual related crime

It’s not a secret it’s a blanket act that covers all such cases in Victoria

County Court of Victoria

Victoria's principal trial court hears and determines criminal, common law and commercial matters.

www.countycourt.vic.gov.au

OK... so I'm the publisher of my posts/words on bigfooty.

 

[Muddiemoose]

OK... so I'm the publisher of my posts/words on bigfooty.

The law seems to indicate this

• High Court Ruling:
  In 2021, the Australian High Court ruled in Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd; Nationwide News Pty Limited; Australian News Channel Pty Ltd v Voller that media companies are "publishers" of comments made on their public Facebook pages for the purposes of defamation law.
• Liability:
  This means that entities who provide platforms enabling the publication of defamatory comments can be held liable as publishers, regardless of whether they had prior notice of the defamatory content.
• Implications:
  This ruling has significant implications for social media companies and their responsibility for content posted on their platforms.
• Broad Interpretation:
  The court's decision suggests a broad interpretation of "publishing" in the context of social media, potentially extending liability to various social media platforms and their users
  
  

 

[lusheslewis]

It’s to do with laws in Victoria that prevent information being published that could lead to the identification of the victim of a sexual related crime

It’s not a secret it’s a blanket act that covers all such cases in Victoria

County Court of Victoria

Victoria's principal trial court hears and determines criminal, common law and commercial matters.

www.countycourt.vic.gov.au

I was not aware of that, what about non sexual related crimes? I assume it is possible to somehow check for the existence of a such an order with the courts.

 

[Muddiemoose]

I was not aware of that, what about non sexual related crimes? I assume it is possible to somehow check for the existence of a such an order with the courts.

Honestly I’m not sure,
Hopefully someone who is more versed in the ins and outs of the criminal justice system might be able to enlighten us

 

[craffles]

lawskool get in here

 

[Dom sheed pocket]

The law seems to indicate this

• High Court Ruling:
  In 2021, the Australian High Court ruled in Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd; Nationwide News Pty Limited; Australian News Channel Pty Ltd v Voller that media companies are "publishers" of comments made on their public Facebook pages for the purposes of defamation law.
• Liability:
  This means that entities who provide platforms enabling the publication of defamatory comments can be held liable as publishers, regardless of whether they had prior notice of the defamatory content.
• Implications:
  This ruling has significant implications for social media companies and their responsibility for content posted on their platforms.
• Broad Interpretation:
  The court's decision suggests a broad interpretation of "publishing" in the context of social media, potentially extending liability to various social media platforms and their users
  

At the bottom of the thread there’s a “be careful what you post”. Click the details link and it explains it.

Something about Bigfooty being an American company and subject to American law means users are publishers.

 

[Makeshift Park]

Are the details of the suppression order published anywhere? If not, how could anyone be expected to comply with a secret court order?

Hypothetically, what would happen if someone who knew details of the case/allegations shared them with me and I posted them here, or on social media or somewhere else?

Is BigFooty admin aware of any suppression order? If so how?

Practically speaking, a journalist with a readership of hundreds of thousands is going be more at risk of contempt than an anonymous poster in an obscure thread of a niche footy forum.

But theoretically if the DPP wanted to, it’s possible BF would get a rather angry piece of legal correspondence.

 

[Ice-Wolf]

Injury list

Player 1 knee
Player 2 ankle
Player 3 rapist (allegedly)
Player 4 hamstring
Player 5 gambling addiction
Player 6 osteitis pubis

It ain’t happening. Who gives a **** if a AFL team list it however they want to meet legal requirements. The club itself have done nothing wrong.

Player 1 knee
Player 2 ankle
Player 3 personal issues
Player 4 hamstring
Player 5 mental health
Player 6 osteitis pubis

You don't need to be anywhere near specific but can still give a reason.

 

[craffles]

Player 1 knee
Player 2 ankle
Player 3 personal issues
Player 4 hamstring
Player 5 mental health
Player 6 osteitis pubis

You don't need to be anywhere near specific but can still give a reason.

Eh, what’s it achieve though? I’m ok with players privacy being respected and in this instance especially, the alleged victims.

 

[1970crow]

Player 1 knee
Player 2 ankle
Player 3 personal issues
Player 4 hamstring
Player 5 mental health
Player 6 osteitis pubis

You don't need to be anywhere near specific but can still give a reason.

I would expect the legal advice would have been along the lines of ‘avoid doing anything that would assist in identifying the player as being a subject of the suppression order’. Given the seriousness of the legal issue, it would be madness to care about the sanctity of the AFL injury list.

 

[Taylor]

It's a funny quirk of the system in Victoria that the accused can't be publicly named but their name is listed on court appearances posted to the internet.

 

[Strange Cat]

if only you were this angry towards your own club, if someone replies im going to reply back, that's usually what people do on forums

How the **** is it a club issue? What do you expect the club to do when there’s a ****ing court ordered suppression gag in place?

 

[Strange Cat]

It's a funny quirk of the system in Victoria that the accused can't be publicly named but their name is listed on court appearances posted to the internet.

Considering you breached the suppression order a few pages back multiple times I don’t think you’re in a position to really give you views on the legal system since you don’t respect it or understand it

 

[tiger_tough]

Considering you breached the suppression order a few pages back multiple times I don’t think you’re in a position to really give you views on the legal system since you don’t respect it or understand it

He's right though.....it's stupid.

 

[Taylor]

Considering you breached the suppression order a few pages back multiple times I don’t think you’re in a position to really give you views on the legal system since you don’t respect it or understand it

I certainly don't understand it. If I post the URL of the court sessions list, where his name is listed, does it count as a breach?

 

[Strange Cat]

He's right though.....it's stupid.

I haven’t seen the victim’s name mentioned but then again I’m not actively going out to find any details of the situation too

 

[tiger_tough]

I haven’t seen the victim’s name mentioned but then again I’m not actively going out to find any details of the situation too