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

[cleanhands]

Josh Money practically rubbing himself while reporting on a "Culture problem" at the footy club

He would like to be significant

 

[WetCrow1991]

7 seems to have a vendetta against the Crows at the moment.

Sharing of sensitive photos isn't a serious enough crime for 7. Crows players and staff need to commit stalking offenses, arson, sexual assault, or war crimes. Then 7 will be offering players and staff jobs.

 

[Cleric]

Where to begin?

Feel free to go look up section 26C of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) and see what it says. I'll wait.*

(* Don't worry, I'll save you the trouble: it doesn't exist.)

Dig further, however, and you might find section 26C of the Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA). It was quoted earlier in this thread but here it is again:

SUMMARY OFFENCES ACT 1953 - SECT 26C

www5.austlii.edu.au

This provides that a person who distributes an 'invasive image' of another person without that person's consent is guilty of an offence potentially punishable by imprisonment.

The Act defines an 'invasive image' as one that 'depicts the person in a place other than a public place ... engaged in a private act ... or in a state of undress such that - in the case of a female - the bare breasts are visible; or in any case - the bare genital or anal region is visible.'

For completeness, a 'private act' is defined as meaning a 'sexual act of a kind not ordinarily done in public'; or an 'act carried out in a sexual manner or context'; or 'using a toilet'.

I'd recommend against relying on AI summaries of laws.

Oh yeah, I forgot to add, it was a bit disingenuous to omit the part of the legislation that went against your stance.
For reference.

 

[Toucan Ocean]

Oh yeah, I forgot to add, it was a bit disingenuous to omit the part of the legislation that went against your stance.
For reference.
View attachment 2333264

You've quoted from Division 11A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) which concerns child exploitation material.

The discussion until now has instead been around the 'distribution of invasive image' offence under section 26C of the Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA) and the definition of what constitutes a 'private act' under that provision (which I quoted earlier in this discussion and is found under s 26A(2) of that Act).

It might be worth highlighting that this conversation took this turn because you'd made some statements about what the law is that I pointed out were incorrect; that wasn't because I'm having a go at you (I barely post here so have very little prior views about anyone and definitely not you) but because I think it's worth being clear on what the law actually says in this area. Anyway, this feels like it's run its course to me.

 

[Pugsley]

I'll take what Southerntakeover has to say as he is the most qualified on this subject.

 

[Cleric]

You've quoted from Division 11A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) which concerns child exploitation material.

The discussion until now has instead been around the 'distribution of invasive image' offence under section 26C of the Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA) and the definition of what constitutes a 'private act' under that provision (which I quoted earlier in this discussion and is found under s 26A(2) of that Act).

It might be worth highlighting that this conversation took this turn because you'd made some statements about what the law is that I pointed out were incorrect; that wasn't because I'm having a go at you (I barely post here so have very little prior views about anyone and definitely not you) but because I think it's worth being clear on what the law actually says in this area. Anyway, this feels like it's run its course to me.

It's the definition of private under the act.
I made the statement that you could be prosecuted even if the photos wernt nude. You could be prosecuted even if she was wearing lingerie or possibly even a bikini.
A woman taking photos of herself in lingerie is considered a private setting under the act.

I'm not saying that's what the photos were, as I haven't seen them, but just pointing out that the police would investigate a matter that has been brought to them, regardless of it the photos were nude or not.

 

[Toucan Ocean]

It's the definition of private under the act.

You've provided a definition of 'private act' under a different Act; the relevant provisions quoted under that Act deal only with child exploitation offences.

It has nothing to do with the scenario at hand.

I made the statement that you could be prosecuted even if the photos wernt nude. You could be prosecuted even if she was wearing lingerie or possibly even a bikini.
A woman taking photos of herself in lingerie is considered a private setting under the act.

Again, this is incorrect.

As explained in my previous post, the relevant definition of 'private act' in this circumstance is that under section 26A(2) of the Summary Offences Act 1953.

That definition is as follows:

 

[Cleric]

You've provided a definition of 'private act' under a different act that deals only with child exploitation offences.

It has nothing to do with the scenario at hand.


Again, this is incorrect.

As explained in my previous post, the relevant definition of 'private act' in this circumstance is that under section 26A(2) of the Summary Offences Act 1953.

That definition is as follows:

Again, you miss the part where it says not typically done in public. Woman don't strip down to their underwear in public.
I guarantee you if a woman sent a photo to a guy with her in her lingerie, wearning a G-string, and he sent it on to his mate, if she went to the police and complained he would absolutely be charged.
That is the point I am making. A photo doesn't have to be nude to get you in trouble under the law.
It's so ambiguous, deliberately, so many things can be brought in under it by virtue of not typically being done in public.

 

[skam85]

bro hasn't been to a beach in 15yrs ^

 

[spenze]

bro hasn't been to a beach in 15yrs ^

That pale?

 

[Southerntakeover]

I'll take what Southerntakeover has to say as he is the most qualified on this subject.

At interpreting statute, or distributing pornography?

 

[Pugsley]

At interpreting statute, or distributing pornography?

The laws that go with what was reported.