i see it a bit simpler than that. And again, we need to separate the moral arguments from the legal.
She is alleged to have taken them. There are may fact in issue which are yet to be determined in a court of law to a legal standard.
The photos were said to taken in Miami USA, at an end of year trip. The room background and the content suggest that to be true. the photos were obtained from Sams computer, when she say them and emailed them to herself.
Additionally there is also a potential question of whether she had implied permission to access the photos. Was Sam's laptop or the section he kept the photos in password protected, and if it wasn't, did he give anyone including her implied permission to access it and for what purposes? There is some case law on these issues.
If i say you can use my laptop doesnt mean you can steal whats on it. And then publish it. It would be the same for an excel spreadsheet or word doc.
Another problem with Sam is that his actions are tainted with illegality. He who seeks equitable relief must come to court with clean hands. If Sam took them is he guilty of upskirting vis the photos of Nick? Nick gave his permission PERHAPS, or perhaps not, after all he said he didn't give permission for the photos to be deleted, which indicates a problem with consent. So there may be a potential 'did Sam upskirt Nick' question or was Nick upskirted by a 17 year old girl. To sue her they have to prove that the photos were taken after the date the law changed and in Australia. First you have to establish clean ownership before you say that someone stole something.
Clean hands ? I get the attempted pun, but these photos arent pornographic or ilegal. One guy pleasuring himself, and another standing naked with a another guy near by. Maybe they are lewd. They are certainly immature and a bit homo but whose business is that? Its hardly the same as someone taking photos up skirt. At this point, Im thinking you havent seen the pictures...Its clear that the Nick one was posed.
Anyway the definition of theft includes the intention to deprive permanently. (another legal quandary) You could say that Sam's actions were tainted by illegality vis Nicks' photo. So there is a clean hands problem. He who seeks equitable relief must cum with clean hands to court (unfortunate language) Sam may not have legal STANDING otherwise he mightn't be able to get up in court. After all it was Nick too that was standing at the time that the photo was standing.
Not once have you addresses the issue of copyright. She did not take the photo, she is not the copyright owner, she cannot publish that content without permission of the owner. I cant say I am the writer of the song Hey Jude just because I stole the sheet music from a friend's nans' pianola.
Maybe Nick would have to be the one who would have to get up again in court this time fully clothed I would hope with his hand on the bible as opposed to ....obviously being prepared to know some woman in the biblical sense
can you please post a link to any article that suggests that Nick and the girl were involved? She never claims they were intimate or that they knew each other in the biblical sense. She says she only met him once in public, getting on the team bus.
What I am saying is that you can really imagine Sam playing footy for St Kilda for the next five years whilst these important questions are examined in microscopic detail as it winds its way through court.
I think it will all be shut down when they ascertain the girl didn't take the photos. And wasnt there when they were taken.
And as a society maybe we will come to the conclusion what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes doesn't require judgments from the chattering and twittering classes or belong on TV or in newspapers.
Now as a test for the right to publish the pics, here's the thing. If the pics are posted here bulldogs10110, should they be left up or taken down? El Diablo would sent enough infractions to give me an infarction
