Slovenian lawyer appalled: for photos of a "bald dick" sent to a boy, such a court decision

A Slovenian lawyer has expressed deep concern over a recent court decision that acquitted a man for sending explicit photographs to a minor. The case involves a man who sent multiple photos of naked women and his own genitals to a boy via the Messenger application. Despite being convicted for engaging in sexual relations with two minors, the court ruled that the images did not constitute pornography under the law. This ruling has sparked criticism from legal experts, including Igor Vuksanović, a constitutional expert at the Slovenian Constitutional Court, who argues that the definition of pornography used by the judiciary is overly narrow. The incident unfolded when the accused, a man, communicated with a minor through the messaging platform, sharing explicit content. While he was found guilty of indecent behavior with two underage individuals, the court dismissed the charges related to distributing pornographic material. According to Vuksanović, this outcome highlights a problematic interpretation of the legal framework surrounding pornography. He points to Article 176 of the Criminal Code, which defines the act of showing or making accessible to someone under 15 years old materials containing pornography or other sexual representations as punishable by imprisonment up to two years. Article 176(1) of the Criminal Code states that anyone who sells, shows, displays publicly, or otherwise makes available to a person under 15 years old written works, pictures, audiovisual or other items containing pornography, or shows a sexual representation, shall be punished with a fine or imprisonment for up to two years. Vuksanović explains that the intent of this provision is to prevent adults from exposing minors to explicit content. However, he argues that the current judicial practice creates ambiguity, particularly regarding what constitutes pornography. In the specific case, the man sent photos of naked women and his own genitals to the boy. The higher court ruled that mere nudity does not equate to pornography. Vuksanović notes that for content to qualify as pornographic, it must depict sexuality in a more intense, exaggerated, or dramatic manner. Therefore, the court distinguished between nudity or sexual content and pornography. He emphasizes that this distinction is crucial, yet the threshold for what qualifies as pornography remains unclear. Vuksanović expresses frustration with how the legal system sets such a narrow boundary for what counts as pornography, especially when dealing with children. He finds it troubling that the law requires proof of harmful effects on a child's development before classifying content as pornographic. He adds that these consequences can be difficult to establish, as they might manifest much later. He further clarifies that while he does not have access to the exact nature of the photographs in question, his critique focuses primarily on the image of the male genitalia, commonly referred to as a “dick pic.” Such images, he argues, represent a different kind of exposure than simply visiting a nudist beach or discussing sex with a child. Vuksanović acknowledges that there is nothing inherently wrong with allowing children to visit nudist beaches or having open discussions about sex with their parents. He supports the idea that parents should appropriately discuss sexuality with their children and that sex education is part of school curricula. However, he stresses that intentionally sending sexually suggestive images to a minor is a separate issue altogether. The broader context of the case reveals that the accused had been previously convicted for engaging in sexual activity with two minors. It is unclear whether the photo-sharing occurred before, during, or after these acts. Vuksanović warns that sending such images could serve as a preparatory step for further sexual misconduct against minors. Ultimately, Vuksanović questions the line between sexual expression and pornography, arguing that the distinction is necessary but often misapplied in legal contexts. He believes that the current approach risks failing to protect minors adequately, leaving them vulnerable to inappropriate exposure.