01 November 2010
This is one such case on the serious trouble front.
Sexting is a serious problem. It is a serious problem because of the immediate harm it can do to those involved. It is a serious problem because after the immediate harm there is ongoing and long term harm that must be endured by those involved. Mobile phones link so easily into the internet now days that an image sent from one phone to another can be quickly uploaded to the internet. People need to realise that once an image is online, it is almost impossible for it to 'disappear'. What goes online, stays online...forever!
So, if you send or post a naked picture of yourself, then make sure it is something you will be happy to see when it comes back to haunt you in the future.
Now, that takes care of the sermon angle.
Onto the news.
A young man, Damien Eades, thought he had avoided any serious consequences from his part in soliciting a 13-year-old to post him naked images of herself. For Eades this might have been a little presumptuous. He is now set down to be the first Australian to stand trial in a sexting case.
In March of 2008, an 18-year-old Eades was employed at KFC. He sent the picture to a 13-year-old girl with the message "you like?" Aside from the fact that he is 18 and she is 13, what happens at KFC that employees have time to take off their shirts and pose for a few photos and then start sending them off to people? What ever happened to preparing and cooking chicken?
Anyways, after establishing that the 13-year-old "liked" what she saw, Eades for some reason thought it would be a good idea if she returned the favour, but by sending a shot of her 'bottom half'. The girl agreed and ended up sending a full-frontal nude shot of herself to Eades.
The story might have ended there, except for a rather vigilant father who thought it necessary to check out his daughter's phone. When Dad discovered the messages, it was on the phone to the police.
The case originally went to the Penrith Local Court and was dismissed. It would seem that the magistrate did not think that the charges against Eades, incitement of a person under 16 to commit an act of indecency and possession of child pornography, were worth pursuing at trial.
However, the Director of Public Prosecution was far from satisfied with that outcome and decided to appeal. The appeal was heard by Justice Greg James of the Supreme Court. Justice James agreed with the Director and sent the case back to the local court for trial. According to Justice James, the sexual content of the electronic transaction warranted a trial.
Eades might not be so lucky the second time around.