Season 2017 - Richmond

Agreed Deckham - it’s the sharing of the photo that Broad was investigated for regarding acting illegally.
Whilst we’re waiting to find out what Broad actually did with the photo - because it is that act of sharing which is central to the (strength of the) moral case against him - another issue bugs me here and it’s how the AFL and the AFL media become this foiking self-appointed moral authority on all things.

If Broad was an audit clerk for Xcorp or a public servant and the rest of the facts are the same ie employee is investigated for sexting and no charges are laid, how does the employer a. know about it; b. get involved; and c. have the right to remove him from his employment? There probably is a term in his employment contract which allows Xcorp to do whatever they want. But what are they doing in these circumstances?

My feeling (only from my own employment) is they stay away from these personal problems as they see a separation between employees’ working and private lives. Does anyone have any evidence to the contrary?

Not sure if you read my post well.
After you do…

Also, you do not need permission to share a photo if certain conditions are met:

  • The photo was taken in and from a publicly owned space
  • The person/s in the photo can not ‘reasonably’ expect privacy

Agree with the gist of what you’re saying - although it may be considered ok to share with others whom the couple trust. We are all agreeing that Broad acting decently would have deleted the photos or at least never shared them.

But the issue for me is, so what? Telling a lie and showing some mates a nude photo (he may have done much, much more than this - I’m waiting for the facts) is not the ‘right thing to do’, but if this action warrants public shaming, humiliation and suspension by the employer then there another trillion acts which happened recently which also do; some involving footballers.

I wouldn’t call Nathan broad a sex offender. I think that’s a bit over the top

Also, don’t make assumptions about me, d*ckhead

3 Likes

FWIW SCHWARZ said on SEN something to the effect that he and others had seen the image within almost 24 hours of the GF. Now the media wanna hang the guy out to dry whilst also being a part of the problem.

2 Likes

It would only be okay to distribute the image with her implied or express consent which Broad clearly did not have and to which he had publicly admitted to doing. It is a criminal offence punishable by up to 2 years imprisonment.

In respect of your employment query it is not unusual for professionals to have clauses in their contracts under which they agree to refrain from behaviour which may cause harm to the employer’s reputation. I know if I disseminated an intimate image of a person holding my employee of the year award (ha!) standing in front of my place of employment, which not only came to the attention my employer but made the front page news and nightly news bulletins for several days running, I would not only lose my job but would have made myself unemployable in my industry.

So I personally consider that Broad is quite lucky. Firstly, the victim requested that the police discontinue the investigation. Secondly, his employer slapped him on the wrist with a wet lettuce leaf.

Are you serious? So by the same logic, if I tell you something in complete confidence – something very personal or private – and you choose to reveal it to the world, that it’s actually my fault coz “nobody put a gun to my head” to tell you?

It’s a dog-eat-dog world out there.
Lots of dogs.
Naked dogs.

It strikes me as odd that (so far) nobody has any idea whatsoever what Broad actually did with the photo. Did he share it with a mate or 2 who he thought he could trust; or did he distribute it widely; upload it on some public social media site or what?

If he committed a criminal offence worthy of imprisonment then he would have been charged. So that argument is superfluous. However despite not knowing the details of the critical act (except Broad sent it to someone) many have decided they can effectively assess his degree of immorality and determine that the punishment dished out was inappropriate. I only know one thing - you can’t rationally assess morality without a clear understanding of the facts regarding the action which you are assessing!

Your example AD_Don of your employer and your well deserved employee of the year award is a good one. It would probably play out as you described. My concern is who judges whether the employer’s reputation has been ruined? There is marketing research to suggest this (hypothetical) exposure could do wonders for your sales. As a community, why do we allow (why would we allow) a photo of a topless woman destroy a corporate reputation?

This trial-by-media case has nothing to do with facts, logic or the protection of a victim. Every freakin’ media byte has the photos embedded and sometimes with the information that the full images are readily available. They care less about the woman than Broad does. I agree Broad acted inappropriately, but I think his behaviour is insignificant compared to the dishonesty and misrepresentation which is entrenched within how the media exploits these types of cases, and it is these actions which we are all complicit in when we consume and regurgitate media (mis)information.

1 Like

If I may - what difference does it make who and how many? Whether he trusted someone he shared it with has no bearing on the offense. It is the initial sharing that is the offence.
Secondly, a conviction cannot be made without the victim’s charge/consent/evidence.

2 Likes

I don’t agree with your 2nd point. Serious cases are prosecuted without the victims, who are sometimes dead. This case could have been prosecuted on the ‘facts’ that we think are available if they actually are facts.

With regards the 1st point, from the little we actually know it appears the woman’s concern is that the photo went viral. We can’t just assume she would be concerned if the photo was shown to 1 or 2 of Broad’s mates. Maybe she would have been embarrassed or angry, but we don’t know. It’s also quite normal and of very little consequence for a topless photo to be shown among a few mates. Morally, this is of lesser concern than the act of making the photo available to the public. In this latter scenario, Broad is culpable for not considering the possibility of wider distribution, but that is not the same as performing the act to distribute widely.

On your 1st point -
Only in cases that affect a broader target, excuse the pun. This is a personal offence - quite literally. Without the woman’s will to press, it’s over.

On your 2nd -
Again - I can’t see this as relevant. It does not matter what happens after the offense is committed, other than to perhaps affect a sentence.

And this bit:

Not sure what to say to this, mate. You’ve de-personalised the victim, and humanised the perpetrator in one sentence to grease your point. Not gonna fly, and I’ll leave it there.

1 Like

Once someone sends a photo electronically, they lose control of how far it is disseminated and they know that. . That explains why there is sexting legislation applicable to the originator…
There are many crimes - often having a sexual context- that are not proceeded with because the victim cannot face the interrogation, public exposure and inevitable character slurs. Remember that Geelong rape case that got dropped because the victim could not bear to relive it.?
IMO, Broad’s public shaming is of far more consequence than the match penalties. It sends a message that smart ■■■■ boasting is not to be applauded and can have serious consequences. If criminal action had run its course, he could have been placed on a sex offenders register.

1 Like

Unfortunately this has got messy.
What you’re missing here Deckham are the means that are used to assess morality.
For example you say - It does not matter what happens after the offense is committed,
but we are not assessing (il)legality. That horse has already been dropped. (Expected) consequences - ie what happens after the action is the primary way of assessing morality (ie utilitarianism).
The other way is intent and we know nothing of the intent of Broad when he committed the act of showing the photo except that he was probably showing off. To assess intent we would need to know what he said at the time, did he tell his mates to not show anyone, who did he send it to, how many etc etc.

As to your last point there is a clear moral difference between engaging in an act to deliberately and widely distribute a photo to the general public as opposed to showing it to a mate or 2 - and this moral difference is based on consequence and intent.

I’ve repeated the statement clearly that Broad’s act of showing the photo was not the act of a decent person; but once the photo was taken it was, unfortunately for the victim, quite feasible that some boys were going to share it around. The commonality of such behaviour is relevant to morality to the extent that you accept that a widespread prevailing culture amongst males is a determinant of behaviour.

Now you can misinterpret all of this to suggest that I think Broad’s act was OK and the victim is not a person, but seriously you’ve missed the entire moral argument and the dilemma as to the lack of credible information to assess morality if you fall for that again.

1 Like

Stir fried.

Your clearly smart, but I’m having difficulty seeing which side of the fence you are on.

What are you trying to say?

Ok - look. I was under the impression you are arguing about legalities, not moralities. Morals are not black and white and are open to culture, upbringing, religion and whatnot. So I won’t muddy things and go there.

I did not ‘assume’ that you thought what Broad did was ‘ok’. I don’t know what made you think that.

You seem to me to be mixing legalities and moralities, what’s ‘right/wrong’ with what’s ‘legal’. I’m happy to bow out and let you discuss it further with others.

I can’t agree with that. In showing it to anyone he was violating the girl’s trust. Ask yourself, was she implicitly saying, when the photo was taken, Oh, of course it’s fine if you send it to a couple of mates?

I don’t think anyone could presume she was saying that.

I am more interested in whether Broad sent the pic to the lady.

Why? How would it matter?

I will try to summarise my argument. Also, this is my profession, but that doesn’t mean for one moment that I’m right and someone else is wrong. What I do understand is the process that needs to be followed to rationally assess the morality of Broad’s actions and the information that is needed to forecast consequence and understand intent.

Where I sit is that I’m hopelessly frustrated the AFL media continually cast moral judgement (caro and tim lane are the worst offenders) when they have no idea how to perform a credible ethical analysis, when much of the critical information needed is missing, and then the masses (including us) recirculate their shallow arguments.

I think the media case is that the woman didn’t consent to distribution, sexting is a serious offence under the law which can result in imprisonment for 2 years, hence Broad is guilty and deserves a harsh(er) penalty.

It is this case that confuses legality with morality. There is no charge, no court case and no verdict, hence we can’t assume that Broad acted illegally. Therefore assessing Broad’s action is a moral, not legal argument. The criteria for assessing morality are entirely different to those used to determine if Broad broke the law.

I want to know what was said when the victim agreed to the photo; was this an intimate photo between lovers or was there an intention to show others; why did the victim consent and then want the photo deleted - did she then realise she couldn’t trust Broad to secure the photo - ie what is the (context) of the relationship between these 2; what exactly did Broad do with the photo; who did he send it to; did he know and trust these people; did he tell them to not distribute it; did he upload it and make it publicly available; what was his state of reasoning eg influenced by alcohol; what is the impact of Broad’s actions on the woman - is she traumatised by him or the downstream impact of the photo going viral…this list can go on…

I’ve said that Broad’s actions were wrong and a decent person would have deleted the photo as requested. But I think the AFL, the media and the AFL community are immature and completely incompetent when it comes to handling issues like this. The AFL don’t consider the facts, rather they predetermine a penalty based on the level of public hysteria that’s been whipped up, then they work back from there. Because of this Broad never had a chance of receiving a fair hearing; and the victim’s needs and wellbeing were always going to be neglected as the media seeks to profit from the story and the AFL grandstand by pretending they care.

edit - I agree with Deckham that it’s probably time (for me too) to leave this issue alone now.

6 Likes