Cyberbullying and Explicit Images among Juveniles: What Parents and Juveniles Need to Know

The trigger is usually a letter from the prosecution, a summons to the police, or, most unpleasantly, a house search with the seizure of all devices. Sometimes notification first arrives via the Child and Youth Welfare provider, sometimes via the school management. The shock is considerable, especially when the charge is “child pornography”, even if Section 207a paras. 5/6 StGB will often substantially defuse the situation in legal terms in the end.

From a defence perspective, three things matter most in the first 72 hours. First: your child does not have to make a statement on the substance to the police. Provide personal details, yes. Remain silent on the substance until defence counsel has had file access. Anyone who tells “the whole story” in the heat of the moment creates accusations that can hardly be corrected later. Second: for indictable offences, and Section 207a paras. 1a or 2 are indictable offences, the involvement of defence counsel is mandatory; this counsel cannot be waived (Section 39 para. 1 no. 1 JGG). Third: the seizure of smartphone, laptop, tablet, and games console is standard, even if the image in question no longer (or never) resided there. Cloud backups and recovery snapshots often allow forensic analysis to continue for months.

Even “just one image” or “just one post” can fulfil several criminal provisions at the same time, Sections 107c, 207a, 218 para. 1b and, depending on the constellation, Section 120a or 144 StGB can all apply alongside one another. That is precisely why early legal classification pays off: the subsumption decides whether what is on the table at the end is a misdemeanour with a diversion perspective or an indictable offence with an indictment perspective. The special rules that the Juvenile Justice Act provides for this entire proceeding, from the right to silence through mandatory defence to the trusted adult under Section 37 JGG, are set out in detail in the overview article.

The offence of continuous harassment by means of telecommunications or a computer system was originally introduced by the StRÄG 2015 (BGBl. I 112/2015) and was significantly tightened by the Hass-im-Netz-Bekämpfungsgesetz (HiNBG, BGBl. I 148/2020). The version in force has applied since 1 January 2021.

Offence (para. 1): A person who, by means of telecommunications or a computer system, unreasonably impairs another person's way of life, either by committing a criminal act against honour perceptible to a larger number of persons, or by making a fact or image recording from the most personal sphere of life of a person, without that person's consent, perceptible to a larger number of persons. Sentencing range: imprisonment of up to one year or a fine of up to 720 day-fines.

Threshold lowered by the HiNBG. Before 2021, the second variant (facts or image recordings from the most personal sphere of life) also had to reach a larger number of persons. The reform clarified that even a single post can fulfil the offence if it remains perceptible to a larger number of persons for a longer time, for instance because it stays up on a platform, is mirrored, or is forwarded. “A longer time” remains open to interpretation; case law and academic writing have been working out the borderline since 2021.

Aggravation (para. 2). The sentencing range increases to up to three years' imprisonment if the victim commits or attempts suicide as a result of the offence, if the conduct continues for more than one year, or if perceptibility persists for more than one year. The reference to consequences for life and limb of the affected person is central here, particularly with juvenile victims with documented psychological impact, the aggravation is regularly examined in practice.

The suitability test as a defence lever. The element of “unreasonably impairing the way of life” requires, according to settled case law, an objective-subjective standard, what matters is how an average person in a comparable position would be affected. For persons of public life, an increased threshold of tolerance applies. From a defence perspective, what matters here are the differentiation of contributions (who wrote which post, who only read along?) and the question whether a single post actually achieves the perceptibility over a longer time required by Section 107c para. 1.

Distinction from Section 107a StGB (persistent pursuit): Section 107a requires person-related pursuit (one-to-one), typically repeated contacts or approaches. Section 107c requires perceptibility for a larger number of persons (one-to-many), typically class-chat posts. Both offences can be fulfilled in parallel, for instance with combined stalking messages and public exposure, in defence, we regularly examine the alternatives of subsumption.

The central provision of this article. Section 207a StGB makes the production, offering, distribution, and possession of pornographic depictions of minors punishable, the sentencing range stretches, depending on the variant, from up to 2 years (possession) over 6 months to 3 years (production, offering) up to 1 to 10 years (commercially or with many depictions). The constellation “my son sent his girlfriend a selfie” is not expressly named in this provision. That is precisely why the legislator created two explicit privileges that are central for defence in juvenile criminal law.

Section 207a para. 5 no. 2 StGB, personal-use privilege. Not punishable is the production or possession of a pornographic depiction of juveniles aged 14 to under 18 for personal use, or for the use of the depicted juvenile, where that person has consented and there is no risk of dissemination. Four cumulative requirements: juvenile age (both 14 or older), consensual (active agreement of both sides, no pressure, no threat), personal use (the recording remains in the two-person context), and no risk of dissemination (no concrete risk that the recording will leave the two-person circle).

Section 207a para. 6 no. 1 StGB, self-sexting privilege. Not punishable is the production or possession by a juvenile of a pornographic depiction of their own person. The “classic” case: the 16-year-old takes a selfie and has it on her own phone. The offence is objectively excluded.

What the privileges do not cover. As soon as one requirement falls away, the basic offence under Section 207a StGB applies. Four constellations are particularly common in practice: First, forwarding to third parties beyond the consensual two-person circle, the consent of the depicted person related only to personal use, not to forwarding. Second, recordings under pressure or extortion, no valid consent, the privilege ceases to apply; potentially additionally Section 144 StGB extortion or Section 105 StGB coercion. Third, recordings of children under 14, the privilege is not applicable, with an even aggravated framework. Fourth, age difference with an adult, the privilege only applies among juveniles; as soon as one person is 18 or older, that person falls outside it.

Defence practice where the privilege applies. We always recommend: no premature diversion negotiations. Diversion means accepting responsibility, where the offence is objectively excluded, the right answer is a written submission to the prosecution citing Section 207a para. 5 no. 2 / para. 6 no. 1 StGB and an application for termination on the ground that the conduct is not punishable under Section 190 no. 1 StPO. Seizure orders are to be accompanied in parallel by applications for return and deletion. As to the concept of diversion in general, and why diversion in juvenile criminal law is not subject to a 5-year sentencing cap, see the overview article in this series.

Alongside Sections 107c and 207a StGB, three further offences are regularly to be examined in cyberbullying / explicit-image constellations, graded by severity and sentencing range.

Section 218 para. 1b StGB, unsolicited transmission (“dick pic”). Version in force BGBl. I 45/2025, in force since 1 September 2025. Offence: unsolicited transmission of image recordings of the genitals or content comparably belonging to the sexual sphere by means of telecommunications or a computer system. Sentencing range: imprisonment of up to six months or a fine of up to 360 day-fines. Prosecution (Section 218 para. 3): only with the authorisation of the injured person. From a defence perspective, the authorisation requirement is an important lever, often a valid authorisation is missing, or it is withdrawn during the proceedings.

Section 120a StGB, unauthorised image recordings (upskirting, school changing rooms). Version in force BGBl. I 148/2020 (HiNBG), in force since 1 January 2021. Para. 1 makes the intentional image recording of the genitals, intimate area, buttocks, female breasts, or the underwear covering these areas of a person without that person's consent punishable, provided these areas are protected from view, or the person is in a dwelling or in a space specifically protected against viewing. Sentencing range: up to six months or 360 day-fines. Para. 2 makes the unauthorised making available or publication of such a recording punishable (up to 12 months or 720 day-fines), subsidiary, where not punishable under a stricter provision. School changing rooms and sanitary rooms count, according to settled case law, as “specifically protected spaces” within the meaning of para. 1.

Section 144 StGB, extortion (sextortion). An indictable offence with a sentencing range of 6 months to 3 years' imprisonment, aggravated up to 5 or 10 years. Engaged in constellations where the threat of publication of intimate recordings is used to compel a transfer of assets or another performance. In practice, sextortion situations often involve professional gangs working through fake profiles, defence against juvenile co-defendants here differs significantly from the standard case. Where there is a suspicion of property crimes in this context, the early differentiation of contributions is decisive.

Section 283 StGB, incitement, as an additional offence. Where bullying posts have a discrimination dimension, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability, Section 283 StGB may additionally be fulfilled, with a significantly higher sentencing range (an indictable offence). We deal with this complex separately in the upcoming “Hate online” follow-up of the juvenile criminal law series.

Concurrence. In practice, several offences arise at the same time. A class-chat post with image montage and degrading text can fulfil Section 107c StGB (second variant: most personal sphere of life + larger number of persons) and Sections 111 StGB defamation / 115 StGB insult as an annex. Forwarding an explicit image to a 30-person WhatsApp group regularly fulfils Section 207a para. 1 and Section 107c StGB in parallel. The concurrence questions are relevant for both subsumption and sentencing, in defence, we examine them systematically.

Five anonymised case vignettes that show typical defence levers, from the privilege at the level of the offence to diversion with victim-offender mediation.

A, Class chat with image montages and hate posts. Four 15-year-olds create memes over weeks in an 80-person WhatsApp group of the school year, in which the face of a fellow pupil is mounted onto degrading images. The victim begins to stop attending school. Engaged: Section 107c para. 1 second variant StGB (image recordings from the most personal sphere of life); on deterioration of the victim's health Section 107c para. 2 (suicidality). Defence: differentiation of contributions (who wrote which post, who only read along?), suitability test, active diversion application with victim-offender mediation (NEUSTART), and participation in an anti-bullying training. Likely outcome: with first-time offenders, diversion with victim-offender mediation and community service; with repeat offenders, finding of guilt without sentence (Section 12 JGG) or under reservation (Section 13 JGG).

B, Sexting in a relationship (both 15). A 15-year-old couple exchanges intimate selfies for months, both actively and consensually. Parents of one of them find the phone and file a criminal complaint. Engaged: nothing. Section 207a paras. 5 no. 2 / 6 no. 1 StGB apply fully, both juvenile, consensual, personal use, no risk of dissemination. The offence is objectively excluded. Defence: written submission to the prosecution, application for termination on the ground that the conduct is not punishable under Section 190 no. 1 StPO; application for return and deletion of the seized devices. We always recommend, in this constellation, not entering into a diversion negotiation, diversion means accepting responsibility, which is not appropriate here. Likely outcome: termination.

C, Forwarding to third parties after a break-up (“revenge posting”). A 17-year-old receives an explicit image consensually from his same-aged ex-girlfriend during the relationship. After the break-up, he forwards it to a 30-person WhatsApp group. Engaged: Section 207a para. 1 StGB (offering / making available, the personal-use privilege of paras. 5/6 ceases to apply with forwarding) and Section 107c StGB (image recording from the most personal sphere of life + larger number of persons + suitability for impairment). Defence: early restitution, written notice to all 30 recipients with a written deletion request, an apology to the depicted person, sex-education counselling as documentation, diversion application with victim-offender mediation (NEUSTART). Likely outcome: with acceptance of responsibility and victim-offender mediation, diversion; on refusal, finding of guilt under reservation (Section 13 JGG) with probation services or a conditionally suspended custodial sentence of a few months.

D, Sextortion (extortion with explicit images). A 16-year-old receives an explicit image via Snapchat from a (in fact fake) same-aged fellow pupil and sends one of himself in return. The other side threatens to publish the image to the class if 200 euros are not paid. Where the defendant has himself committed the extortion: Section 144 StGB extortion (an indictable offence, 6 months to 3 years' imprisonment), Section 105 StGB coercion subsidiary, Section 207a StGB on actual publication. Defence: examine the requirements of extortion precisely (actual threat, transfer of assets, intent to enrich); in juvenile criminal law, the possibility of diversion even for indictable offences, a special advantage of Section 7 JGG that does not exist in the adult criminal law. Likely outcome: with acceptance of responsibility, diversion possible; otherwise realistically a conditionally suspended custodial sentence.

E, Covert recording in the school changing room. A 14-year-old secretly films fellow pupils in the swimming-pool changing room with his phone. The recordings remain on his phone and are discovered when a teacher inspects the device. Engaged: Section 120a para. 1 StGB (unauthorised image recording in a specifically protected space); where pornographic in character, additionally Section 207a para. 3 StGB (possession, up to 2 years for juveniles, up to 3 years for children). Defence: subsumption clarification (does the recording reach the pornographic threshold, or does it remain within Section 120a?), examination of the lawfulness of the seizure, diversion application on confession and willingness to attend sex-education counselling. Likely outcome: with first-time offenders, diversion with therapeutic conditions.

Once you have understood at which thresholds a criminal proceeding is decided, you can better classify the role of the defence. Seven typical stations, from the criminal complaint to the judgment, with the points at which we have to act from a defence perspective.

Juvenile criminal law knows four out-of-court or court-internal resolution routes that all create no criminal record, and that, in cyberbullying / explicit-image constellations, are practically always at the forefront.

Termination on the ground that the conduct is not punishable under Section 190 no. 1 StPO. The mildest, and best for the depicted person. Requirement: the offence is objectively excluded, typical where the sexting privilege under Section 207a paras. 5 no. 2 / 6 no. 1 StGB applies. Defence lever: early written submission to the prosecution.

Abstention from prosecution (Section 6 JGG). For misdemeanours with a maximum top sentence of 5 years, without death, without further intervention need. The prosecution is to terminate prosecution where no special grounds of special or general prevention stand in the way. The classic lever for school-chat first-time incidents without significant outcome wrong.

Diversion without an upper sentencing limit (Sections 7, 8 JGG). Unlike in adult criminal law, where diversion is excluded for sentencing threats above 5 years, the JGG knows no upper sentencing limit. Even with Section 207a para. 1 StGB (6 months to 3 years), and even with aggravations with higher sentencing ranges, diversion is possible, provided there is no serious culpability, acceptance of responsibility is present, and there are no obstacles of special prevention. In practice: victim-offender mediation at NEUSTART, community service, or probation with conditions, we also speak here of “diversion with a counselling condition” where, for example, a sex-education counselling service or an anti-bullying training becomes part of the probation conditions.

Finding of guilt without sentence (Section 12 JGG) or under reservation (Section 13 JGG). Already at the trial stage. The court establishes the finding of guilt but refrains from a sentence (Section 12) or reserves the imposition of the sentence for a probationary period (Section 13). Both routes create no criminal record in the strict sense and are not taken into account as a prior conviction under Section 31 StGB in later proceedings.

What parents and juveniles should do, and not do. Do: call defence counsel before any questioning; do not delete or “clean” devices yourself (this would be considered an obstruction of evidence); collect documentation for restitution, willingness for victim-offender mediation, and, where applicable, therapy. Do not: make sweeping statements at the police station in the first wave of upset; respond to Child and Youth Welfare correspondence aggressively; accept diversion offers without defence counsel, without examining whether the privilege under Section 207a paras. 5/6 applies.

When a cyberbullying or explicit-image proceeding is over, parents almost always ask the same question: “Does this stay forever now?” The short answer: it depends, but mostly not.

Criminal record. Diversion, abstention from prosecution, and finding of guilt without sentence under Section 12 JGG create no entry in the criminal record. Anyone who successfully completes diversion has no entry, not even as a blocking note. That is precisely the decisive strategic reason why diversion is, in most cyberbullying / sexting constellations, the priority defence goal. Convictions are entered, but with their own, shorter deletion periods under the Tilgungsgesetz.

School and apprenticeship place. The notification system of Section 33 JGG is designed for stigmatisation protection. School authorities are in principle not notified, except on a conviction to a custodial sentence of more than six months, including a conditionally suspended one (Section 33 para. 4 JGG). With sexting matters of minor weight and first-time bullying incidents, this threshold is practically never reached, the school learns nothing. If a proceeding is later terminated or ends with an acquittal, all bodies already informed receive a follow-up notification to clear the record. More on the stigmatisation protection under Section 33 JGG in the overview article.

Working life. Certain authorities receive targeted information, others do not. Cyberbullying and sexting convictions without an entry in the criminal record remain invisible to ordinary employers and training institutions. Where convictions are entered, the JGG-specific deletion rules apply, usually significantly shorter than for adults.

When legal advice is mandatory. As soon as the police arrive for a house search, as soon as a summons to questioning arrives, as soon as a letter from the prosecution lands in the post box, every one of these thresholds, from a defence perspective, justifies an immediate call to defence counsel. The first 72 hours decide on diversion or indictment; the first weeks decide on diversion or trial. For indictable offences, and Section 207a paras. 1a, 2 as well as Section 144 StGB are indictable offences, mandatory defence under Section 39 JGG applies anyway.

Every criminal complaint under Section 107c or 207a StGB deserves immediate legal advice. The sexting privilege of Section 207a paras. 5/6 StGB is narrow, but where it applies, it objectively excludes the offence. Where it does not apply, diversion in juvenile criminal law is practically always possible, because the JGG knows no 5-year sentencing cap. In both cases, early preparation decides.