Sexting allegations-Rabbitohs

[Valheru]

View attachment 23494

I’d say under the Crimes Amendment (Intimate Images) ACT 2017 parts 91P and parts 91Q that a certain young lady and a certain media outlet could find themselves in trouble, if not for 91P definitely 91Q.

I highly doubt they would get anywhere with 91P. Surely sending nude pics/footage of yourself on something like face time suggests that you know it is likely the pics or footage are being kept.

91Q possibly but that would require someone publically admitting that they did send the content which would would raise a number of other issues for that person.

Either way, i can't see this ending in legal action against the media or the lady in question as one would think a prolonged exposure of this case in the public eye is far from optimal for all concerned.

 

[Woofy7]

I think it would be easier to prove unlawful distribution against consent. Consent is her word against Sam, but distribution is something the telegraph should’ve got permission for from the owner of the image.

I highly doubt they would get anywhere with 91P. Surely sending nude pics/footage of yourself on something like face time suggests that you know it is likely the pics or footage are being kept.

91Q possibly but that would require someone publically admitting that they did send the content which would would raise a number of other issues for that person.

Either way, i can't see this ending in legal action against the media or the lady in question as one would think a prolonged exposure of this case in the public eye is far from optimal for all concerned.

F

 

[Woofy7]

Her motive is irrelevant now TBH. What do you think the motive of the person who taped pearce and sold it to the media was?

All that matters now is it is in the public eye.

His motive was to make money, that person admitted that he sold that footage for monetary gain

 

[Valheru]

His motive was to make money, that person admitted that he sold that footage for monetary gain

Exactly

 

[southsport]

If there Sam has not committed a crime then there should be no punishment.

 

[Valheru]

If there Sam has not committed a crime then there should be no punishment.

Pearce didn't commit a crime.

 

[southsport]

Pearce didn't commit a crime.

Why do you keep mentioning Pearce? This has nothing to do with him.

 

[Woofy7]

Exactly

Exactly right that’s why I questioned her intentions. Her actions don’t represent what she was seeking

Pearce didn't commit a crime.

The person filming owns the content, where as a video call the person distributing the video call owns the content. Therefore you require his/her consent to distribute.

 

[southsport]

The person filming owns the content, where as a video call the person distributing the video call owns the content. Therefore you require his/her consent to distribute.

So is it the case that the player is the victim of a crime?

 

[Woofy7]

So is it the case that the player is the victim of a crime?

Honestly the player is the victim of stupidity.....but she had no right to record without his consent let alone distribute.
Pretty sure this law exists to stop ex’s distributing content

 

[Great Dissenter]

But it’s not consent about the video chat taking place that matters here. 91Q is did she get the gentleman’s consent to distribute the photo. 91P is did she get the gentleman’s consent to take the screenshot ie (record) the event.

Now if she says she did get consent then she is implying she consented as well.

I do not disagree that the female in question could possibly be charged pursuant to section 91Q if there is a sufficient nexus to NSW (see Woofy7 comment re New Zealand).

The point I was making is that it would be nigh impossible to successfully prosecute under section 91P as there is consent (under section 91O). Said gentleman has given implied consent given that he has consensually broadcast the nudity via a carriage service that is known to have recording capability and he should assume that screenshots may therefore be taken.

Based on what we know, it cannot be said that there would be reasonable prospect of conviction under section 91P by a reasonable jury properly instructed as to the law. If my client were charged by the Police under section 91P in similar circumstances, I would take the Police for malicious prosecution.

The female's 'consent' is irrelevant to a charge brought under these provisions.

 

[CliveC]

Rupert and Gorgeous in the same cell?
Make room for Parasitis folks!
and Kent and Rothfield.

 

[Great Dissenter]

Rupert and Gorgeous in the same cell?

Let's be honest, RupeDog has more say in what will eventuate in this debacle (via News Corp) than anyone in the NRL hierarchy. This much has remained unchanged since 1997.

 

[English Rose]

The Daily Telegraph rapidly deleting the content related to this incident with The player involved and now Paul Kent changing his tune from wanting him suspended to now saying this has all been blown out of proportion makes me think there is more to this story in the players defence.

 

[Valheru]

Why do you keep mentioning Pearce? This has nothing to do with him.

You said the player shouldn't be sanctioned if he didn't commit a crime. Pearce got sanctioned without committing a crime. That is called a precedence

 

[southsport]

You said sam shouldn't be sanctioned if he didn't commit a crime. Pearce got sanctioned without committing a crime. That is called a precedence

Ch7 News reported that the woman was a willing participant and shared photos of herself.

 

[Valheru]

Ch7 News reported that the woman was a willing participant and shared photos of herself.

Yeah, and?

 

[Woofy7]

Ch7 News reported that the woman was a willing participant and shared photos of herself.

If that’s the case the telegraph has a lot to answer for.....hopefully this winds up quickly and we turn our focus to the game on Saturday. I actually see this as being a motivation for the player involved as it appears he’s done nothing wrong.

 

[southsport]

Yeah, and?

It was consensual between 2 adults and shouldn't have been shared by the woman.

 

[Pommy]

You said sam shouldn't be sanctioned if he didn't commit a crime. Pearce got sanctioned without committing a crime. That is called a precedence

So how does sharing naked photos with a concenting adult come under this precedence? If a player pays a hooker for sex can they get banned because Pearce got banned?
What if two players have a threesome and it is announced in the media?
Who gets to decide?