Ssshhhh Don't mention the War, but

[Matimbo]

Consider this: Man uploads 'revenge porn'= NAUGHTY MAN!!!......Women uploads 'revenge porn'= NAUGHTY MAN!!! Fevola gets pillored, Swan and Cloke get pillored, it makes no sense.

Actually I don't think Fevola did get pilloried

Ahhh, thanks Meg. So Stevoswan actually meant "pilloried". In the context of all the talk about revenge porn, I was too embarrassed to ask what "pillored" meant ... either as the perpetrator or victim.

[Kumarangk]

Yes, not much to hear on SEN about us but....Kevin Bartlett has us out of the 8. Already being underrated.

Your'e kidding !!! Age must be catching up with Kevvie.

[WolfGang]

The football will be back in the sports pages - once the tennis is over - as the sports journo's have to write something !!

[dejavoodoo44]

Hmmm, has Kevin been out on the town with Dustin?

[Nico]

Yes, not much to hear on SEN about us but....Kevin Bartlett has us out of the 8. Already being underrated.

[wolftone57]

No, that's not correct. There are specific laws in South Australia and Victoria which make it an offence to publish or post invasive or intimate pictures without the consent of the person depicted. Sending the pics does not constitute consent-to-publish in these circumstances. There is no equivalent law in NSW, but if it was deemed to be "revenge porn" it might well come under the Crimes Act anyway.

Actually there is no 'revenge Porn' legislation in any state of Australia. It does not fall under the 'Crimes Act' and does not fall under the 'media and Communications' Act either. This is a fact that was published recently and is a hot topic as we speak. There is a push to make 'revenge Porn' illegal and punishable by long prison terms and so it should be. It would be placed under the Media and Communications act like 'child Porn' and other despicable communications devices.

As to local laws regarding Media and Communications I was not aware that they even existed. I was under the impression this was a Federal legal responsibility not state. Are you confusing the law of publishing an image garnered illegally or nefariously. In other words paparazzi using images of people in the public eye without permission. Does this actually fall under that law? I'm not certain it does because they have not published the image they have offered it to a publisher. Since the Howard and then Rudd governments introduced a whole heap of legislation covering the internet but nothing covering this subject. I have just looked up the law in Victoria and you are right;

These laws also apply to pics of adults, but they are a bit different. It is illegal to send on or share a sexy pic of someone over 18 unless they agreed to you sending or sharing it.

Sending, posting or sharing a sexy pic of someone else who is over 18 will break the law of distributing an intimate image if they have not agreed to you sharing it.

The law is a bit different for pics of adults. If the person in the pic is over 18, it is illegal to send it on or share it with anyone else if they did not agree to you sharing it.

Apparently the law changed in Victoria in 2013. Then was updated in 2015. Thank you for your insight. The girls who gave the pics to the publisher are liable and can be punished by up to 2 years gaol. The publisher receives no penalty.

Anyway we are in the news for good reasons not because of the insidious nastiness of the AFL. funny how Fitzpatrick is a board member of the corporation who runs ANZ.

[chammond]

I agree it is inappropriate to compare this to Fevola. but there is one point I'd like to make. Whether despicable or not what the person did was quite legal. Once you send an image to another person they can do what they like with that image. You have by sending it to them given your permission for them to use it in any way they wish. swan and Cloke are the idiots here and of course to blame in their own unveiling LOL

No, that's not correct. There are specific laws in South Australia and Victoria which make it an offence to publish or post invasive or intimate pictures without the consent of the person depicted. Sending the pics does not constitute consent-to-publish in these circumstances. There is no equivalent law in NSW, but if it was deemed to be "revenge porn" it might well come under the Crimes Act anyway.

[MomentByMoment]

Yes - I am feeling the peace and I'm sure the club is as well.

We can go back to what we do best - developing our own brand of football and the culture that supports it.

[Doctor]

Back to Primmy's original point, it's the first time in 2-3 years that we haven't been front and centre of hype, speculation and general hooplah at this time of year. The club, the coaching staff and the players must be loving it. The quiet resolution of the Parker deal only helps to keep us out of the press. Love it.

[wolftone57]

Actually I don't think Fevola did get pilloried (or at least nowhere near the extent to which he should have been). It was the young woman in the photo, who could clearly be seen in the photo to be unhappy about the photo being taken and not only had not given her approval for the photo but asked for it to be deleted - who was humiliated.

I do agree that whoever released the photos of Swan and Cloke acted despicably. On the other hand, Swan and Cloke actually took their own photos and willingly sent them to the recipients. That doesn't excuse the release of the photos - but to compare it to the Fevola incident is inappropriate.

I agree it is inappropriate to compare this to Fevola. but there is one point I'd like to make. Whether despicable or not what the person did was quite legal. Once you send an image to another person they can do what they like with that image. You have by sending it to them given your permission for them to use it in any way they wish. swan and Cloke are the idiots here and of course to blame in their own unveiling LOL

[wolftone57]

Yes, they were stupid, as AFL players.....but the thing which struck me most from the whole episode was the complete hypocrisy of the overall reactions of most....Consider this: Man uploads 'revenge porn'= NAUGHTY MAN!!!......Women uploads 'revenge porn'= NAUGHTY MAN!!! Fevola gets pillored, Swan and Cloke get pillored, it makes no sense.

If they weren't AFL players nobody would care. Storm in a tea cup. Not ideal but who hasn't posted something on social media that they haven't later regretted.

[Meg]

Actually I don't think Fevola did get pilloried (or at least nowhere near the extent to which he should have been). It was the young woman in the photo, who could clearly be seen in the photo to be unhappy about the photo being taken and not only had not given her approval for the photo but asked for it to be deleted - who was humiliated.

I do agree that whoever released the photos of Swan and Cloke acted despicably. On the other hand, Swan and Cloke actually took their own photos and willingly sent them to the recipients. That doesn't excuse the release of the photos - but to compare it to the Fevola incident is inappropriate.

[stevoswan]

I'll rephrase that last sentence. Fevola gets pillored, rightly as the perpetrator, Swan and Cloke get pillored, as the victims, no mention of the perpetrators, it makes no sense.

[stevoswan]

Yes, they were stupid, as AFL players.....but the thing which struck me most from the whole episode was the complete hypocrisy of the overall reactions of most....Consider this: Man uploads 'revenge porn'= NAUGHTY MAN!!!......Women uploads 'revenge porn'= NAUGHTY MAN!!! Fevola gets pillored, Swan and Cloke get pillored, it makes no sense.

[RogueSwan]

.... In the end, Malcolm Turnbull intervened saying the AFL couldn't impose the tattoo ban because it might be just enough to tip the Australian economy into recession, like the chopstick that broke the Tiger's back. .

Is that because the big tattoo corporations are not paying tax?