• via Alberto da Giussano, 26, 20145 Milano
  • +39 02 4003 1253
  • info@studiolegalebianucci.it
  • Criminal Lawyer, Family Lawyer, Divorce Lawyer

Supreme Court Ruling: The Boundary Between Stalking and Revenge Porn

The recent ruling of the Supreme Court, no. 33230 of March 28, 2024, offers interesting insights into the delicate issues related to the crimes of stalking and the unlawful dissemination of sexually explicit images. The Court was called to decide on a case in which the defendant, A.A., was convicted of stalking and the distribution of private content of his ex-partner, B.B. This article aims to analyze the legal implications of the ruling, highlighting the differences between the two crimes and the importance of protecting individual freedom.

The Context of the Ruling

In the judicial proceedings, A.A. was accused of having harassed and threatened his ex-partner after the end of their relationship. The contested behaviors included sending offensive messages and disseminating sexually explicit images, both to the victim's children and to third parties. The Court of Appeal of Rome had confirmed the first-instance conviction, but A.A. subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that his actions did not constitute the crimes for which he had been convicted.

The Supreme Court reiterated that the unlawful dissemination of sexually explicit images constitutes an autonomous crime distinct from the crime of stalking.

The Differences Between Stalking and Revenge Porn

The crux of the ruling lies in the distinction between the crime of stalking, provided for by Article 612-bis of the Penal Code, and that of revenge porn, governed by Article 612-ter of the Penal Code. The crime of stalking is established when there are persecutory acts that generate in the victim a serious state of anxiety or fear. In contrast, the crime of revenge porn is committed through the dissemination of sexually explicit images without the consent of the depicted person, with the intent to cause harm.

  • Stalking: persecutory behaviors, threats, and harassment.
  • Revenge porn: dissemination of intimate images without consent.

Conclusions

The Supreme Court ruling, while confirming the conviction of A.A., emphasizes the importance of differentiating the various types of crimes related to gender-based violence. The protection of individual freedom and the dignity of the victim must always be at the center of legal analysis. The Court highlighted the necessity of ensuring the protection of privacy and the physical and psychological integrity of individuals, especially in an increasingly digital context. This case represents an important precedent for Italian jurisprudence and a step forward in the fight against gender-based violence and privacy violations.