The 17 year old teenager at the centre of the AFL photo scandal has been described by the AFL as a “girl with issues”.

She turned up at a St Kilda Training Session of Monday at Frankston with some banners which made it clear who her issues were with.

The AFL have now indicated they are concerned for the welfare of their players.

Whilst the teenager has posted pictures on the internet and turned up at a training session with banners,  there has been no violence or threat of biolence by her.

The type of damage she has caused has been embarrassment of various kinds, and by turning up at a training session with her banners she seemed to be indicating that she wanted to keep something in the public eye.

The teenager has asked for the AFL Code of  Conduct to be enforced against two players who she had sex with and is requesting that they be de-registered.

There is no Constitutional or civil right to play football and certain rights are forfeited by players when they step over a certain line and engage in misbehaviour.

Related posts:

  1. Dikileaks – Saints, Level Playing Fields & Other Phallusies
  2. Dikileaks Saints & Sinners Law
  4. Dikileaks – Saints, Sinners Or Both?
  5. Dikileaks – Girl Ordered by Court To Destroy Photos
This entry was posted in Online defamation, Privacy, Twitter, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Philip (in Williamstown) says:

    Would it be too cynical to suggest the AFL’s use of the “issues” phrase is a dog-whistle to the misogynistic, slut-shaming culture that is found in toxic quantities around the footy clubs, so that the young girl is to be viewed as not to be trusted at any level as well as being totally to blame for the situation she now finds herself in?

    While appearing to offer an olive branch to the girl, thus they are also trying to (further) muddy the waters by isolating the victim from any support in the population that fanatically follows the clubs. How also does this apparent concern from the AFL for the girl (possibly no more genuine than uttering lip-service) square with the actions of the St Kilda VP Ross Levin to pursue her punitively, for the foreseeable future? “When you get an order for damages, in the event we are successful in our claim, the order continues to be valid for up to 15 years.”

    It looks like the AFL is uttering platitudes of superficial concern and making policies of “conduct” or “respect” that are simply ignored and unenforced when it suits them, while allowing the clubs to circle their wagons and sic their lawyers onto the girl.

  2. pacelegal says:


    You got it in one!

    I don’t think that’s cynical at all.

    ‘They’ come out looking a whole lot more dysfunctional than her but that’s just my point of view. The organisational malaise will haunt them.

    Really folks out there and cult members ‘the only real problem is this girl is crazy’.

    It isn’t our problem. She hasissues and we were trying to ‘help’ her (benevolence)

    Now that she has come to a football game peacefully with a couple of posters she becomes “dangerous“.

    Where is the evidence for that?

    Why would a bunch of grown men, and a Football team with the media, and a fantasy team of hollywood rock star lawyers on tap, with suppression orders be frightened of a 17 year old girl in a physical sense?
    She turned up to a game and she was peaceful, although she was harmed by fans who were out of control. Do the Club have any responsibility to prevent that happening on their grounds?

    She hasn’t showed any evidence of physical violence. There have been no threats of violence. She hasn’t changed her modus operandi from the start. She may be mixed up (understandably), hurt (understandably) but there is not one scintilla of evidence that she could be “dangerous” as the AFL seem to be leading up to in saying “we are concerned about the welfare of our players, even though we realise she is a very troubled woman”?

    But if I am wrong and she has a gun permit I guess they could always cancel it. Problem solved. No threat to the boys’ physical welfare. They are evoking imagery of Intervention Orders for someone whose stash of weapons has been the internet and a couple of posters.

    Whether it is toxic in the culture is not something I can speak to, as I am not immersed in the culture. I am sure other players wouldn’t really feel too impressed though, as people naturally associate the attitude of the AFL and spokespersons of clubs with player attitudes. They don’t look at the legal niceties and broad sweeping generalisations are made which cast aspersions on players of integrity with values that do respect women.

    Platitudes, lip-service, inconsistent positions being taken by officials who, whilst representing different parties/organisations, (AFL – Demetriou, Ross Lewin AFLPA consultant and St Kilda VP), send a clear message to the casual reader that they are condoning abuse of women.

    They don’t stop to think about the legal niceties of Lawyer Lewin representing Gilbert in getting the interlocutory injunction, Nick’s interest in any future action/s taken separately or to which he may be joined. Don’t know about the standing of the AFL or the joinder of parties in future actions. But whatever they say or do in their respective capacities there should be some element of internal cohesion and consistency in their PR response. It is wanting.

    ‘They’ (clubs, or AFL or any other organisation) are vicariously liable for their agents and employees’ actions. If a woman trainer weresexually harrassed by a player they would be vicariously liable. They would at least consider any OH&S responsibilities they had to their fellow employees. This is just by way of analogy were there was a preponderance of evidence not sufficient to meet the legal standard.

    Yes it is enforced, their Code of Conduct arbitrarily and capriciously. However I havn’t seen sexual misbehaviour as rating anywhere in the de-registrations and sanctions to date.

    “Conduct and responsibility, respect programs’ whatever they are called, in this context reminds me of the old ‘corporate social repsonsibility polcies’ . Tokenistic.

    She admitted that she lied re: the Miami photo/s. I had a feeling that she didn’t take the photo. However, having said that it doesn’t take a lot of imagination to conceive of many reasons why she say this and could be excused. She is young, confused, not legally sophisticated and I think it goes to her state of mind. There is also speculation that there were threats and once again that is subject to forensic proof in a court of law. However there is also the common misunderstanding people have about copyright violation. She said something interesting “I thought I would be in more trouble if it was my property“.

    Copyright is a property right but there is a distinction between the IP in the property and the chattel. She was making use of the owner’s exclusive rights to reproduce, copy, make available online. The Jack Valenti ‘copyright is theft’ argument comes to mind. It is the censorship function of copyright that people don’t really think about. I can keep a diary in my filing cabinet of corruption at the highest levels and I have copyright in it straight away. I might not want it published. The Scientologists stopped embarrassing information being published via the mechanism of copyight, a tool of censorship if you look at it’s historical legacy. Copyright is used as an instrument of censorship. Many authors tried to prevent their works being published using copyright when all else failed. On the other hand she has been accused of Crimes Act offences as well which cover this situation. I wonder if Sam was in an intimate relationship with her, whether she had any more implied permission to access his photos than he had to access her body when it was convenient. What is more intimate? Your laptop or sex?

    Privacy issues relating to whether the pictures were consensually taken is a grey area. The players were no doubt treating it all in jest and might have thought it was understood or as Nick says ask for the photo to be deleted. However I wonder how the law will judge position re: copyright ownership. A person’s consent to the capturing of images is relevant in two respects. There is an implication that the visual image can be taken only for private purposes and the second is that it only be used for ‘private or domestic purposes’. That is the default position without a signed agreement. It could be argued that the the person who took the photo and has copyright, and therefore doesn’t legally require the permission or consent of the subject photographed. If the case does see the light of day I wonder how they will decide whether such permission is necessary.

  3. Pingback: Demetriou and Nixon AFL Cover Up In Saints Girl Case | Pace Legal Intellectual Property

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *