Photograph of topless woman sent to 3AW

[HAL]

All?

[E]

[Woods]

[Pies4shaw]

^ I'm not sure why you say that. Her motive (whatever it may be) for complaining is irrelevant to the question whether an offence was committed.

Of course, she wouldn't be using the "revenge-porn" law under any circumstances - the State prosecutes, not the complainant.

[Woods]

[HAL]

It could be true.

[Pies4shaw]

[Woods]

^ I used 'judge' in lower case. As such it is a synonym for magistrate.

[Pies4shaw]

^ Not where I come from, it isn't.

[stui magpie]

Someone asks to take a photo, you consent, then ask them to delete it.

Why would you take a photo and then delete it, unless it's a shit photo? Can you see better looking at the phone screen?

Stupid to pose for it in the first place, as stupid as the AFL players sending dick pics or anyone sexting in the first place.

having said that, she has a right to be pissed off that it was shared, but that photo is from a different situation to what the revenge porn legislation was intended to cover.

[E]

^ Not where I come from, it isn't.

You guys are have a dumb conversation about semantics and its totally unrelated to the OP.

i have so little sympathy for this woman. I think she really ought to shut up and smarten up.

Having said that, Woods makes a great point. If she is in the business of marketing that rack, then she is entitled to seek compensation for its dissemination.

[ronrat]

So if she appears in Penthouse or similar for money does this player if prosecuted and found gulty have a right to sue for his share of money as he was boosting her image and thus she gained commercially.


It didn't do Kim Duthie any harm.

AllI can say is that photo was not taken at the Royal.

[K]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/investigat ... z7fqo.html

[stui magpie]

^

Smells like a payoff to me.

[ronrat]

Maurice and Blackmailers involved. Ambulance chasers R Us. Not only a payoff involved. Probably less harm done than setting fire to a dwarf I suppose.