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

[Crow till I die]

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

This is pretty simple stuff.

It was a snapchat picture so the exectation was likely that it would be seen by the recipient and then the photo disappears. Its different than a standard photo with no time limit on it as i would see it

 

[1990crow]

Define a man.

It is located on the Arabian Peninsula in southwestern Asia and is a member of the Arab League.

 

[Crow till I die]

Define a man.

Not a woman

 

[WetCrow1991]

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.

Nah you don't get it, 2 actions are actually 1 action.

 

[WetCrow1991]

Not a woman

You are so close to getting it little fella.

 

[dogs105]

Not a woman

So, like a carrot then?

 

[Crow till I die]

So, like a carrot then?

See i was right

 

[dogs105]

See i was right

First time for everything! Good job mate!

 

[Crow till I die]

You are so close to getting it little fella.

Lol...its like shooting fish in a barrel

 

[Crow till I die]

First time for everything! Good job mate!

I love your accidental inertia here...tin gods and all

 

[WetCrow1991]

Anyone that exclusively says female instead of woman is generally someone avoided by both.

 

[WetCrow1991]

Lol...its like shooting fish in a barrel

You are by far the least serious person on this website.

 

[Mr_Moogle]

View attachment 2323736

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

He studied the rules of acquisition but only applies it to booze.

 

[cleanhands]

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?

It will continue to expand

 

[BRL121]

It will continue to expand

Yes, but we're talking about the photo.

 

[_SirStealthy01]

7news went straight for Tex for the story, guess gotta ask one of the leaders

 

[cleanhands]

Yes, but we're talking about the photo.

Not at my age

 

[BRL121]

7news went straight for Tex for the story, guess gotta ask one of the leaders

Well, they couldn't go for anyone in the twenties.

 

[_SirStealthy01]

Well, they couldn't go for anyone in the twenties.

true, I would of asked Murphy personally but he's in his twenties

 

[adelaidecrows]

regular journalist: Crows player sanctioned for sending photo without permission
Footy Journalist: Adelaide Crows under fire for allowing player to send explicit photos
Sam McLure: Crows players caught in explicit pr0n Ring with Club permission.

 

[Samcro24]

Explain why

It’s a silly comparison.

Fact is, anything you do online has the potential to bite.

Maybe the phone gets stolen, or the social account gets hacked. Remember what they dubbed “the fappening” Where a bunch of celebs took nude selfies or made sex tapes, iCloud got hacked and shit got leaked.

Remember the photos of ringworm and I think Dal Santo with their ***** out?

It’s not secure. If you don’t want others to see, don’t do it. Photos, incriminating messages, whatever. Dumb.

 

[cmndstab]

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.

Boy, this whole issue seems very complex, with all kinds of edge cases and moral questions to consider.

As a society, we should probably sit down, weigh all these issues up, and collectively work out which situations are acceptable and which are not. And maybe when we've finished, it can be codified into some kind of statute or law.

 

[jenny61_99]

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.

Some of them in here…

 

[AdelaideFan14]

Conspiracy theory injury?

Injury is real. Unless he is affecting a limp when he is in public places.

 

[feenix67]

Boy, this whole issue seems very complex, with all kinds of edge cases and moral questions to consider.

As a society, we should probably sit down, weigh all these issues up, and collectively work out which situations are acceptable and which are not. And maybe when we've finished, it can be codified into some kind of statute or law.

Or people can be less stupid, so we don't have to have a law to stop people from losing a finger while they're scratching their arse.