Spoiler warning!
For those who have been living under a rock, the new hit show Adolescence has everybody talking. Based in the UK, at the centre of story is a 13-year-old boy, Jamie Miller, who is accused of murdering his female classmate, Katie.
The show, with its one-take hour long episodes, has mesmerised viewers and prompted a healthy international debate around the world on the topic of physical violence and online harm.
Watching this show through the lens of someone who works in the child safety and safeguarding space, there were 3 parts of the show that grabbed our attention.
The first point that struck us was the profound detrimental impact the online environment is having on children’s psyche and wellbeing.
In the show, it is revealed that in the lead up to her murder, Katie shared a private topless image of herself with a male classmate, who, without Katie’s consent, distributed the image to his other male classmates. In an engrossing conversation with his forensic psychologist Jamie admits that he pursued Katie romantically because he thought his romantic prospects with Katie were improved because of the harm Katie has suffered to her reputation. In a complicated twist, it is also revealed that following Jamie’s romantic approach to Katie, he is bullied by Katie and his other classmates online, including via Instagram posts which, using emojis, ridicule Jamie and label him as an incel and part of the ‘red pill community’.
It is clear the bullying and toxic online environment have an immense impact on Jamie, Katie and other children at the school. In the episode with the forensic psychologist, Jamie flips chaotically between self-hatred, misogyny and ferocious anger at a world which he perceives as being biased him and other boys.
The second point that struck us was the utter confusion and lack of understanding shown by every adult in the show about the challenges young people are facing online. This is most powerfully demonstrated in episode 2, when the police detectives try to find answers at Jamie and Katie’s school. The detectives are hopelessly out of their depth and misconstrue the online interactions between Jamie, Katie and their other classmates. They incorrectly believe that Katie was friendly with Jamie online when she was actually bullying him.
Online bullying at the school is rampant, affecting most students. There appears to be no systemic approach to managing the issue of online harm at the school, and the teachers are overwhelmed and ill-equipped to support their students to deal with it. This leads to a defeatist attitude from teachers who throw their hands up in the air because it is all too hard.
The third powerful point in the show for us was the heartbreaking despair shown by Jamie’s parents as they ponder whether there was anything they could have done differently to protect Jamie, see the signs and steer him in a better direction. Jamie’s father recalls buying Jamie a computer and a headset, and thinking he was doing the right this for his child who would be safe in his room at home. Jamie’s mother recalls Jamie being online in his bedroom until 1am every night, and her not realising what was happening to Jamie as he sat in front of his computer night after night.
Laws prohibiting intimate image abuse and deep fakes under Victorian and Australian Federal Laws
In Adolescence, Katie’s intimate image was shared online by one of her classmates.
This conduct, if it occurred in Victoria, would be criminal conduct.
Under section 53S of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), if a person (A):
- intentionally distributes an intimate image of another person (B) to another person (C); and
- the distribution is contrary to community standards of acceptable conduct; and
- person (B) did not consent the distribution of the image or the manner in which the image was distributed; that person (A) is guilty of an offence.
The penalty is up 3 years imprisonment. Consent is irrelevant if person (B) is under 18 years of age.
Under section 53T of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic),if a person (A):
- threatens another person (B) to distribute an intimate image of (B) or another person (C); and
- the distribution is contrary to community standards of acceptable conduct; and
- (A) intends that (B) will believe they will carry out that threat; that person (A) is guilty of an offence
The penalty is up 3 years imprisonment.
These Victorian offences clarify that:
- consent means free and voluntary agreement;
- a person doesn’t consent to the production or distribution of an intimate image just because they consented:
- to a different image;
- on a different occasion;
- to an image being taken or shared in a different way (i.e. video vs photo, or text message vs social media); or
- to an image being distributed to a different person.
- consent to the production of an image doesn’t mean consent to distribution of an image; and
- a person distributing their own image does not consent to another person distributing that image (or a different one).
There are also a range of federal offences that may be relevant to this conduct.
For example, under section 75 of the Online Safety Act 2021 (Cth), a person (A) must not post or threaten to post an intimate image online of another person (B) without (B)’s consent. The eSafety Commissioner has the power to issue a removal notice or formal warning and can make a civil penalty order of up to 500 penalty units (currently $165,000).
Under section 474.17 of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth), it is an offence to use a carriage service in a way that reasonable persons would regard as being menacing, harassing or offensive. Under section 474.17A, there is also an offence to target those who use technologies to artificially generate or alter sexually explicit material (such as deepfakes) for the purposes of non-consensual sharing online. These offences are subject to serious criminal penalties of up to six years imprisonment for sharing of non-consensual deepfake sexually explicit material.
Australian context
It is not enough in today’s world to say that online harm is all too hard to address. Online abuse is not just happening overseas or in fictional TV shows like Adolescence.
In 2023-24, the eSafety Commission received 7,270 reports about image-based abuse and requested removal from more than 947 locations across 191 platforms and services.
In February 2025, two Year 11 students from Gladstone Park Secondary College were suspended pending a police investigation after fake sexually explicit images of up to 60 students from the school were circulated online.
The risks are real, and it is incumbent on organisations that exercise care, supervision and control over children (and parents) to deeply consider ways to empower students to be safe online, and support students to understand their rights and options if they are victims of online abuse.
Key takeaways
There are many lessons that could be taken from this show, but for us, two key lessons are:
- Schools and organisations that exercise care, supervision and control over children have a duty of care to keep children safe. In this new era of online harm, this means they should:
- train their staff to understand and respond to risks to children in the online environment;
- develop meaningful, systematic strategies to address and prevent bullying and online harm; and
- equip children in their care, supervision or control with the knowledge, skills and confidence to be safe online.
- Parents should take steps to understand the risks associated with the online environment so they can better understand what their children are being exposed to and support them to promote respectful behaviours online.
How can we help?
Our child safety and safeguarding team helps organisations with incidents of online harm between students and can provide support in navigating any investigations that may arise.
Moores can also provide tailored training about online harm for staff and support organisations that provide care, supervision and support to children to develop meaningful strategies for preventing and responding to online harm at their school.
Contact us
Please contact us for more detailed and tailored help.
Subscribe to our email updates and receive our articles directly in your inbox.
Disclaimer: This article provides general information only and is not intended to constitute legal advice. You should seek legal advice regarding the application of the law to you or your organisation.