Re: Richmond player being investigated by police

[Giardiasis]

We have laws, I know you don't like laws but we have them. Laws that the players know about because they receive training on social media.

What gets proven or not is up to the police. If it is not proven then he won't be in trouble.

Not sure why that is so hard to understand

“and so he should be” is what you said. Now I know you think SS couples should be allowed to be married right, and by should you mean in spite of what the law says. So when you say “and so he should be”, you don’t mean because it’s the law, you said should because you personally think he should be punished. So sintiger, what punishment fits the crime in your opinion.

You have not addressed my second question at all. I’m not sure why it is so hard to understand?

 

[Harry]

Any

Some are way more dangerous than others. Like saying all dogs are dangerous.

 

[Rosy]

“and so he should be” is what you said. Now I know you think SS couples should be allowed to be married right, and by should you mean in spite of what the law says. So when you say “and so he should be”, you don’t mean because it’s the law, you said should because you personally think he should be punished. So sintiger, what punishment fits the crime in your opinion.

You have not addressed my second question at all. I’m not sure why it is so hard to understand?

I moved your post from DyerTribe. If you want to discuss SS marriage this is the place to do it...not on the football board.

 

[Giardiasis]

I moved your post from DyerTribe. If you want to discuss SS marriage this is the place to do it...not on the football board.

I wasn’t discussing SSM, I was using his logic from it to apply it to the photo saga. Not cool.

 

[Rosy]

I wasn’t discussing SSM, I was using his logic from it to apply it to the photo saga. Not cool.

You raised it. Call it discussing or logic or whatever you want to...still not appropriate on the football thread and was moved before anyone followed tack. Not cool? Tough luck :hihi

 

[Giardiasis]

You raised it. Call it discussing or logic or whatever you want to...still not appropriate on the football thread and was moved before anyone followed tack. Not cool? Tough luck :hihi

Cool so when someone raises Dustin Martin in the Dion Prestia thread, I guess you’ll move it to the Dustin Martin thread. Makes perfect sense.

 

[Rosy]

Cool so when someone raises Dustin Martin in the Dion Prestia thread, I guess you’ll move it to the Dustin Martin thread. Makes perfect sense.

If they raise SSM on the footy board I'll move it to this thread. Simple.

 

[Giardiasis]

If they raise SSM on the footy board I'll move it to this thread. Simple.

So if someone posts something that is 99% related to a footy matter, then happen to mention SSM in some way, you’ll move it here? It makes no sense to have my post in this thread. The photo saga being a fairly political matter, one that it doesn’t seem I take your side on would’t have anything to do with it? No of course not.

 

[Rosy]

So if someone posts something that is 99% related to a footy matter, then happen to mention SSM in some way, you’ll move it here? It makes no sense to have my post in this thread. The photo saga being a fairly political matter, one that it doesn’t seem I take your side on would’t have anything to do with it? No of course not.

Please explain my side"? I wasn't aware I had one.

BTW the RRP board was started because many don't want those topics discussed on the footy boards and many have no interest in reading about the associated topics at all.

 

[Giardiasis]

Please explain my side"? I wasn't aware I had one.

The post of sintiger’s (that suggested the offender should be punished) that I was in the process of rebutting was responded to you with:

Pretty well sums up my thinking Sin.

BTW the RRP board was started because many don't want those topics discussed on the footy boards and many have no interest in reading about the associated topics at all.

I get that, and think that’s fair enough, but I really wasn’t talking about SSM. I was using sintiger’s logic when applied to a legal question (it just happened to be SSM) and pointing out a contradiction in his argument when applied to the legal question around the photo saga. I didn’t expect him to start a greater discussion around SSM.

 

[Rosy]

The post of sintiger’s (that suggested the offender should be punished) that I was in the process of rebutting was responded to you with:
I get that, and think that’s fair enough, but I really wasn’t talking about SSM. I was using sintiger’s logic when applied to a legal question (it just happened to be SSM) and pointing out a contradiction in his argument when applied to the legal question around the photo saga. I didn’t expect him to start a greater discussion around SSM.

Oh so that puts me in side box. Ok. Do you think it's ok to spread private photos of naked people without their permission? I don't. I wonder if those who think it's fine would be happy to have naked photos of themselves spread around. Feel free to post away. Headless shots of course. No double standards from me. I'd hate it.

 

[Giardiasis]

Oh so that puts me in side box. Ok. Do you think it's ok to spread private photos of naked people without their permission? I don't. I wonder if those who think it's fine would be happy to have naked photos of themselves spread around. Feel free to post away. Headless shots of course. No double standards from me. I'd hate it.

No I don’t think it is ok, but the question is what should the law do about it? I don’t think cheating on a husband or wife is ok, but I don’t think criminal law should have anything to do with it. It is a civil issue concerning a breach of marriage contract. You don’t throw adulterers in jail.

People don’t own the rights to photos taken of them, unless they have a contractural arrangement. So for people to be made criminals for distributing photos is clearly wrong. Not all moral wrongs should be made illegal.

 

[year of the tiger]

So if someone posts something that is 99% related to a footy matter, then happen to mention SSM in some way, you’ll move it here? It makes no sense to have my post in this thread. The photo saga being a fairly political matter, one that it doesn’t seem I take your side on would’t have anything to do with it? No of course not.

Suggest the photo saga is a legal matter - pretty clear given the police are investigating. Nothing to do about politics or footy tbh

 

[Giardiasis]

Suggest the photo saga is a legal matter - pretty clear given the police are investigating. Nothing to do about politics or footy tbh

Questioning the validity of laws is what politics is all about. That’s what people have been arguing about.

 

[MD Jazz]

Questioning the validity of laws is what politics is all about. That’s what people have been arguing about.

Yep. Plenty of laws I disagree with. Most people break laws at some stage.

 

[Brodders17]

People don’t own the rights to photos taken of them, unless they have a contractural arrangement. So for people to be made criminals for distributing photos is clearly wrong. Not all moral wrongs should be made illegal.

so if parents take and share/sell lewd photos of their children, that is ok, legally?

 

[Rfc4Ever]

People don’t own the rights to photos taken of them, unless they have a contractural arrangement. So for people to be made criminals for distributing photos is clearly wrong. Not all moral wrongs should be made illegal.

I bet you would love it if someone had nudes of you and put them all over the net without a contractual arrangement.

And, how would you explain child pornography?

 

[Rosy]

No I don’t think it is ok, but the question is what should the law do about it? I don’t think cheating on a husband or wife is ok, but I don’t think criminal law should have anything to do with it. It is a civil issue concerning a breach of marriage contract. You don’t throw adulterers in jail.

People don’t own the rights to photos taken of them, unless they have a contractural arrangement. So for people to be made criminals for distributing photos is clearly wrong. Not all moral wrongs should be made illegal.

I think you're missing the matter of consent there. An affair may be against your morals but it's not illegal. There must be some law around distributing naked images you've taken without permission to share them. Otherwise why woukd the police be investigating?

 

[year of the tiger]

Questioning the validity of laws is what politics is all about. That’s what people have been arguing about.

Talk about twisting things around - most articles I have read in papers, on talkbacks and on here are about rights of the lady in question and the rights of people to distribute sexually explicit material without consent. THATS WHY THE POLICE ARE INVOLVED. It's a legal matter not a political one.

I can't recall the discussion being about the law being wrong and hence getting the politics involved to change it.

For what it's worth - the law is there for a good reason - to protect those who are taken advantage of and if anything I wouldn't have a problem with it being strengthened even further.

Your comment about only having rights about a photo that you have a contract for isn't correct in my view.

 

[MD Jazz]

That’s a crock of *smile* yott

Why would a woman take their top off, get a medallion from someone they do
Not know (or know very well) and agree to have a photo taken of their breasts with said medallion - if they were worried about someone else seeing it? Why do it in the first place?

Was she forced into it? Why do it if you are worried about a necked image of you being circulated??

Gia is on the money here