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

[cmndstab]

I mean, if you're going to send someone a nude, you wanna make sure you're not identifiable. Rule #1 in the modern world - once it's out there, it's out there.

Definitely a good idea. But not doing so doesn't mean that it's "your fault" if somebody then goes and shares them without your consent.

It's also good practice to keep your thumb over your drink at a party to make sure nobody slips a date rape drug in there when you're not paying attention. But if you didn't do that, and then someone slipped a date rape drug in, nobody* would accuse you of lacking personal responsibility.

* Actually a disturbing number of people would do exactly that.

 

[Samcro24]

Definitely a good idea. But not doing so doesn't mean that it's "your fault" if somebody then goes and shares them without your consent.

It's also good practice to keep your thumb over your drink at a party to make sure nobody slips a date rape drug in there when you're not paying attention. But if you didn't do that, and then someone slipped a date rape drug in, nobody* would accuse you of lacking personal responsibility.

* Actually a disturbing number of people would do exactly that.

Dumb post

 

[Crow till I die]

Gertie spurling on tge news just now said the player took the picture without her permission?. Isn't that different to whats being said in this discussion where it was implied she did give permission to have the photo taken?

 

[Southerntakeover]

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’.

Starting from the position that engaging in a consensual act with someone you trust is 'stupid' because that person can engage in malicious behaviour and cause you significant harm is pretty out there.

But even if you took the position that it involves mistake- so what?

Criminal laws have always illegalised conduct that involves 'mistake' on behalf of victims. Should we legalise fraud because the victim fell for the deceit? Make it legal to steal if you haven't adequately guarded against it? Shouldn't murder victims have taken steps to defend themselves?

Criminal conduct is determined by the conduct of the perpetrator, not the victim. Sharing illicit images of people without consent is shitty behaviour, and in the age of the internet and social media has the harm to cause significant harm, especially to young people. It deserves sanction.

 

[FR0GGY]

Gertie spurling on tge news just now said the player took the picture without her permission?. Isn't that different to whats being said in this discussion where it was implied she did give permission to have the photo taken?

Picture was missing a premiership medal.

 

[Mattrox]

Yep, and if people struggle to understand it, think of it this way.

A person is out at a bar, they meet each other and decide to go home together. They’re having sex, and part way through the person whose house it is walks in and joins in without consent. Who’s at fault?

Exactly this.

 

[feenix67]

Definitely a good idea. But not doing so doesn't mean that it's "your fault" if somebody then goes and shares them without your consent.

It's also good practice to keep your thumb over your drink at a party to make sure nobody slips a date rape drug in there when you're not paying attention. But if you didn't do that, and then someone slipped a date rape drug in, nobody* would accuse you of lacking personal responsibility.

* Actually a disturbing number of people would do exactly that.

Its not a fair comparison. You haven't distributed the drink.

I mean, where does the line sit? If an ex partner of mine wrote me a letter once, am I not entitled to share it's contents with another? Does the nature of the contents of the letter change my distribution rights?

Had she just sent a pic of her boobs - unidentifiable - and the guy passed it on saying "hey, check out x's boobs", is he equally culpable?

I took a picture of a sign on a tropical island once. It was only much later when I shared that pic with a mate, did he point out the woman in the g-string in the background. Should I be on the run?

I think there is no moral question here. Someone sends you an intimate pic, you shouldn't redistribute it. Make a sex tape with your subsequent ex? Nope, dont upload it, share it, or use it as leverage against her. Im on board with the moral question. But as 1970 points out, to what extent do we need to legislate against stupidity? Is a right to privacy implicitly implied when distributing intimate pics, from a legal perspective? If there was no malicious intent - ie just showing a mate a pic he got once - he may be morally on shaky ground, but was she damaged in any way? Was it shared publicly? No. Can future employers, partners, children see it? No.

I think there is some responsibility to be taken in these circumstances. And I dont think we need a law for every possible permutation of possible outcomes. Malicious intent - sure. Otherwise, nup.

 

[BRL121]

Boomer next minute: you shouldn’t be eating junk food

Nah, Pizza's not junk food, assuming you buy it at the right places.

 

[Crow till I die]

We already have the political correctness thread for that.

Lol not sure why you guys that infest the TDS thread are commenting here, you can't even define what a woman is

 

[Southerntakeover]

I took a picture of a sign on a tropical island once. It was only much later when I shared that pic with a mate, did he point out the woman in the g-string in the background. Should I be on the run?

Probably the first time the criminal legal system has had to consider what if an otherwise illegal act was committed accidentally.

 

[Coopers]

Dumb post

Explain why

 

[FR0GGY]

Explain why

How’s a thumb going to cover a drink?

 

[Coopers]

I mean, where does the line sit? If an ex partner of mine wrote me a letter once, am I not entitled to share it's contents with another? Does the nature of the contents of the letter change my distribution rights?

It's really very straight forward. Does it have private stuff that you reasonably expect that she wouldn't want you to share?

Then you shouldn't, just based on being decent. The illegality of it will depend on the contents.


I worry about a lot of you guys. Like, how is this stuff not obvious.

 

[feenix67]

It's really very straight forward. Does it have private stuff that you reasonably expect that she wouldn't want you to share?

Then you shouldn't, just based on being decent. The illegality of it will depend on the contents.


I worry about a lot of you guys. Like, how is this stuff not obvious.

What's obvious is the obvious statement I gave regarding the moral question.

 

[feenix67]

How’s a thumb going to cover a drink?

Maybe she had thumb augmentation surgery?

 

[rocket18]

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.

How about art?

What if someone did a portrait painted from memory or from a photo, can that be shown?

 

[Coopers]

How’s a thumb going to cover a drink?

Just put it over it?

 

[Crow till I die]

How’s a thumb going to cover a drink?

Thats what i thought...who has thumbs that big?

 

[1970crow]

Starting from the position that engaging in a consensual act with someone you trust is 'stupid' because that person can engage in malicious behaviour and cause you significant harm is pretty out there.

But even if you took the position that it involves mistake- so what?

Criminal laws have always illegalised conduct that involves 'mistake' on behalf of victims. Should we legalise fraud because the victim fell for the deceit? Make it legal to steal if you haven't adequately guarded against it? Shouldn't murder victims have taken steps to defend themselves?

Criminal conduct is determined by the conduct of the perpetrator, not the victim. Sharing illicit images of people without consent is shitty behaviour, and in the age of the internet and social media has the harm to cause significant harm, especially to young people. It deserves sanction.

Obviously you're not being serious. Fraud requires only one party engaging in the conduct. What we're discussing is agreed action between consenting individuals. I half understand your view, but to not ascribe responsibility to anyone doing naked shots is absurd.

What I find hilarious is that the posters that support your view continually reference females. None of you simpletons give a krud about Riewoldt or Dal Santo. You don't realise how anti-female you actually are. It's quite funny.

 

[Toucan Ocean]

Obviously you're not being serious. Fraud requires only one party engaging in the conduct. What we're discussing is agreed action between consenting individuals.

But it's not: the distribution of the photograph isn't consensual.

This is pretty simple stuff.

 

[Coopers]

Lol not sure why you guys that infest the TDS thread are commenting here, you can't even define what a woman is

Totally necessary post. Absolutely contributes to the discussion in a postive way.

5 stars, would read again.

 

[Crow till I die]

Totally necessary post. Absolutely contributes to the discussion in a postive way.

5 stars, would read again.

Like the totally necessary post i replied to

 

[WetCrow1991]

Obviously you're not being serious. Fraud requires only one party engaging in the conduct. What we're discussing is agreed action between consenting individuals. I half understand your view, but to not ascribe responsibility to anyone doing naked shots is absurd.

What I find hilarious is that the posters that support your view continually reference females. None of you simpletons give a krud about Riewoldt or Dal Santo. You don't realise how anti-female you actually are. It's quite funny.

You'd think a Ferengi like yourself would know how to count.

 

[WetCrow1991]

Lol not sure why you guys that infest the TDS thread are commenting here, you can't even define what a woman is

Define a man.

 

[Southerntakeover]

Obviously you're not being serious. Fraud requires only one party engaging in the conduct. What we're discussing is agreed action between consenting individuals. I half understand your view, but to not ascribe responsibility to anyone doing naked shots is absurd.

What I find hilarious is that the posters that support your view continually reference females. None of you simpletons give a krud about Riewoldt or Dal Santo. You don't realise how anti-female you actually are. It's quite funny.

I don't think you should describe anyone else's position as unserious while peddling these arguments.

Fraud presents with victims who have voluntarily taken an action too. Deception involves both the deceiver and the deceived.

But, to the extent you say that's irrelevant because the law is only concerned with the conduct of the perpetrator, that's my point. Only one person involved in this event committed the guilty act. Criminal law is not concerned with whether a victim could have prevented the crime at some antecedent time

My post made no comment about gender at all, so can the culture wars.