Club condemns Adelaide Crows player for allegedly sharing an image of a woman without permission

[Pugsley]

NFI how I’m being obtuse, would have thought my position is crystal clear. Are life lessons outside the law now? If you don’t want images of yourself distributed, don’t authorise their capture. Don’t want to get hit by a car, look both ways and be careful crossing the road. Individual’s actions should matter, the law should recognise that.

Its just commonsense.

 

[cmndstab]

Jeez, you’re going backwards. ‘Not for profit’ is a ATO tax status, it doesn’t mean that you don’t engage in profitable activities. All it means is that your constitution doesn’t provide for winding up funds to be shared to its members and must be otherwise forwarded to a similarly constituted club. Have you read your constitution? Did you ever wonder why that clause is in there?

But I agree, some/most laws are just and reasonable. I justdon’t agree that this is one of them. There should always be a personal responsibility aspect. But your involvement should always be considered at law. If there’s any sniff of financial or coercive benefit, no worries, go hard on the perp, but otherwise, it’s an absurd law that is already covered in other statutes.

Now you're just being argumentative for the sake of it. The point is, regardless of whether money is involved, you can't just start sharing people's images without consent regardless of circumstance. There is obviously nuance involved, such as whether the photo was taken in a public place, whether it was shared in confidence, and the context in which you are sharing it.

It sounds like your view is that if you allow people to obtain explicit images of you, you have no reason to complain if those images are later circulated without your consent. Where does that end? What if you record some explicit material with your partner, break up a year later, and then decide to circulate it to embarrass them? Is that okay?

I'll be honest, it sounds to me like you feel that sending anyone explicit images of yourself is inherently shameful, and that people doing it kind of deserve what they get.

You mentioned "life lessons" in another post... what exactly is the lesson here?

 

[Toucan Ocean]

NFI how I’m being obtuse, would have thought my position is crystal clear. Are life lessons outside the law now? If you don’t want images of yourself distributed, don’t authorise their capture. Don’t want to get hit by a car, look both ways and be careful crossing the road. Individual’s actions should matter, the law should recognise that.

Personal responsibility in your framework seems to apply to the person who is vulnerable and faces risk, i.e. the person who is the subject of the image, but somehow not to the person who causes harm by distributing that image.

Sending intimate images to a partner is incredibly common for young people. You might think that's unwise, but it doesn't change the fact that it happens very frequently. It's not the 1990s anymore; technology has changed and the dynamics of personal relationships have too. It's appropriate that laws have changed to recognise that.

 

[1970crow]

Now you're just being argumentative for the sake of it. The point is, regardless of whether money is involved, you can't just start sharing people's images without consent regardless of circumstance. There is obviously nuance involved, such as whether the photo was taken in a public place, whether it was shared in confidence, and the context in which you are sharing it.

It sounds like your view is that if you allow people to obtain explicit images of you, you have no reason to complain if those images are later circulated without your consent. Where does that end? What if you record some explicit material with your partner, break up a year later, and then decide to circulate it to embarrass them? Is that okay?

I'll be honest, it sounds to me like you feel that sending anyone explicit images of yourself is inherently shameful, and that people doing it kind of deserve what they get.

You mentioned "life lessons" in another post... what exactly is the lesson here?

The first lesson is you understanding your constitution and how it relates to ATO tax status. And you’re welcome.

And yes, if you willingly record explicit material with your partner then you choose to accept the associated risk.

And I’ve never suggested it’s shameful, my partner of 30 years had Polaroids used a threat following the dissolution of her prior relationship. It happens, but when you engage in the event, you should be accepting the obvious risks. The law and all the associated costs shouldn’t be coming along and wiping your arse.

But if it’s threats, coercive or for profit, then it breaches existing law anyway.

 

[1970crow]

Personal responsibility in your framework seems to apply to the person who is vulnerable and faces risk, i.e. the person who is the subject of the image, but somehow not to the person who causes harm by distributing that image.

Sending intimate images to a partner is incredibly common for young people. You might think that's unwise, but it doesn't change the fact that it happens very frequently. It's not the 1990s anymore; technology has changed and the dynamics of personal relationships have too. It's appropriate that laws have changed to recognise that.

Maybe young people need to look after their own interests instead of creating laws to protect themselves from their own stupidity. And it’s not just young people, printed sexual images have been around a lot longer than ‘young people’.

 

[jamesclean]

this is a good thread to out boomers and incels! noods are sacred we must protect them!!!

 

[Mr_Moogle]

Didn't take long for this thread to go to victim blaming....heck

When you see a thread like this, you just know this forum's biggest chuds will come out of the woodwork to rile people up with their shit takes.

 

[Mattrox]

What is the actual law? If a person consents to a sexual type image being taken, is it illegal to show others? Is there a context requirement or is it black and white?

Did she give consent?

If you spread nudes without permission it's covered under the revenge pr0n laws.

 

[Mattrox]

this is a good thread to out boomers and incels! noods are sacred we must protect them!!!

It's not about nudes. It's about consent.

 

[cmndstab]

The first lesson is you understanding your constitution and how it relates to ATO tax status. And you’re welcome.

And yes, if you willingly record explicit material with your partner then you choose to accept the associated risk.

And I’ve never suggested it’s shameful, my partner of 30 years had Polaroids used a threat following the dissolution of her prior relationship. It happens, but when you engage in the event, you should be accepting the obvious risks. The law and all the associated costs shouldn’t be coming along and wiping your arse.

But if it’s threats, coercive or for profit, then it breaches existing law anyway.

Your pithy joke about my club's constitution aside, you still haven't stated what the life lesson is here.

Let me have a go at writing it out for you, and you tell me if I have it wrong. It sounds to me like the life lesson you're claiming exists here is "if you share explicit images with anybody, you should have no expectation that those images will be kept private."

You're saying that it's not shameful, but then you're talking about the law "wiping your arse". So what is the proverbial shit in this analogy? The existence of the explicit images in the first place?

 

[Toucan Ocean]

And yes, if you willingly record explicit material with your partner then you choose to accept the associated risk.

Thankfully, the law disagrees, as does the community by and large.

And let's face it, the risk is disproportionately borne by young women in this scenario.

 

[1970crow]

Did she give consent?

If you spread nudes without permission it's covered under the revenge pr0n laws.

What if it’s not revenge? What if there’s no nefarious reason?

 

[Mattrox]

What if it’s not revenge? What if there’s no nefarious reason?

Doesn't matter. The laws are called "revenge pr0n laws". But it means that intimate photos and videos must not be shared or distributed without consent.

 

[Mr_Moogle]

this is a good thread to out boomers and incels! noods are sacred we must protect them!!!

We already have the political correctness thread for that.

 

[Bovo]

Also advertiser trying to shift focus away from the shit show that is Poort.

Not even the tiser is capable of that

 

[Toucan Ocean]

What if it’s not revenge? What if there’s no nefarious reason?

Sorry, what's the scenario in which sharing intimate images without consent isn't nefarious?

In any case, the law provides exemptions in limited circumstances, e.g. medical, legal or scientific purposes.

 

[FR0GGY]

Surely the player blamed AI?

 

[cleanhands]

Yep

When I take and send a dick pick, I do so knowing the recipient may at any point in time forward it on to someone else.

In fact I expect it to happen.

Zoom on

 

[Bovo]

The key to working out who it is will be the link to a delisted player, clearly the two players are really close friends.

Just need to go back through the players we recently delisted and work out who they're close friends with.

Or we could open a bottle of red and watch Port get spanked in the West

 

[Mr_Moogle]

Surely the player blamed AI?

The new "I was hacked".

 

[1970crow]

Your pithy joke about my club's constitution aside, you still haven't stated what the life lesson is here.

Let me have a go at writing it out for you, and you tell me if I have it wrong. It sounds to me like the life lesson you're claiming exists here is "if you share explicit images with anybody, you should have no expectation that those images will be kept private."

You're saying that it's not shameful, but then you're talking about the law "wiping your arse". So what is the proverbial shit in this analogy? The existence of the explicit images in the first place?

Firstly, you were the person that introduced your not for profit club into the discussion as if it had relevance. There’s a vast difference between being ‘not for profit’ and engaging in profitable activities. It was an embarrassing inclusion from you and my ”pithy joke” was not humour, you are smart enough to know better.

And yes, I think it’s perfectly normal that events that were initially private in nature end up being distributed outside of that privacy. The aggrieved person understands the risk associated with authorising the capture of the image.

Look, if we end up with police officers sitting around and twiddling their thumbs waiting for some work to do, then sure, let’s look at this as being a criminal act. But, until then, coercive, deliberately damaging or for profit acts are most likely already covered by other criminal statutes.

 

[Toucan Ocean]

And yes, I think it’s perfectly normal that events that were initially private in nature end up being distributed outside of that privacy.

Do you appreciate that many women, particularly young women, might feel differently?

And that perhaps they face different (arguably greater) risks than many men do in that scenario?

 

[Mr_Moogle]

Zoom on

 

[1970crow]

Do you appreciate that many women, particularly young women, might feel differently?

And that perhaps they face different (arguably greater) risks than many men do in that scenario?

Absolutely, but why abrogate them from responsibility for an act they deliberately engaged in. If they have these concerns, they’re perfectly empowered to eliminate risk. Just as you and I are.

 

[jamesclean]

Absolutely, but why abrogate them from responsibility. I’d they have these concerns, they’re perfectly empowered to eliminate risk. Just as you and I are.

And If people don’t wanna get murdered and r-worded they should just stay at home!!! Eliminate all the risk ya FLOOZIES