Paolo Galdieri : 28 October 2025 07:07
This is the second in a series of articles analyzing gender-based violence in the digital context, in anticipation of November 25th, the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. The focus here is on the evolution of criminal protection against cybersexual assault.
Virtual Sexual Violence (VSV) refers to a range of aggressive and coercive sexual behaviors that occur through digital tools, without physical contact between the perpetrator and the victim. This phenomenon, which disproportionately affects women and girls, takes on insidious forms, including sextortion and virtual sexual abuse, including through deepfakes .
Although the action takes place in a virtual space, the intent and psychological impact of VSV are not substantially different from violence perpetrated in physical space. Both aim to dominate, control, and overwhelm the victim. The digital environment, offering anonymity and physical distance, can lower the perpetrator’s perception of risk, amplifying the victim’s sense of helplessness.
Sextortion differs from revenge porn in its instrumental purpose. It involves threatening to disseminate intimate images, whether real or manipulated, in order to extort further sexual material, money, gift cards , or services from the victim. This dynamic falls under the crime of extortion (Article 629 of the Criminal Code), where the threat of harm (dissemination) has a clear intimidating effect on the victim.
A borderline case is sexual abuse in the Metaverse, namely, assault committed through an avatar . This act, while morally reprehensible and psychologically impactful, raises questions about whether it qualifies as sexual violence (Article 609-bis of the Criminal Code), which requires material conduct.
In the absence of a separate crime of “Virtual Sexual Violence” (VSV), Italian criminal law has addressed the issue by adapting and broadly interpreting Article 609-bis of the Criminal Code and introducing new crimes.
Although the literal wording of Article 609-bis of the Criminal Code seems to presuppose the physical nature of the contact, the case law has affirmatively acknowledged the possibility of sexual violence being constituted online, overcoming the need for spatial contextuality or direct physical contact.
The Court of Cassation has consolidated the position that the crime can also involve the performance of sexual acts on oneself (autoeroticism) under duress or inducement, as established in several rulings (for example, Section III, ruling no. 37076/12). From this perspective, the Court of Cassation upheld a conviction for sexual assault committed through the use of social networks and webcams : in one specific case, the individual had performed autoerotic acts after ensuring that several minors would be watching him via webcam (Section III, ruling no. 16616/15). According to this interpretation, the crime, when it consists of performing sexual acts on oneself, can also be committed in a virtual context, since the law does not require spatial contextuality; rather, it is essential that the abuse be actually perceived by the victim.
Case law has further extended this concept, establishing that remote sexual intercourse can also meet the objective element of Article 609-bis of the Criminal Code, provided that coercion is proven. For example, the crime is committed when the conduct consists of sending suggestive and explicit WhatsApp messages to a minor, forcing her to take intimate selfies and send them, under the threat of publication (sextortion) (Supreme Court, Section III, judgment no. 25266/20). In such contexts, the conduct is considered sexual assault, not extortion (Article 629 of the Criminal Code), as the offender’s primary objective is obtaining the sexual act (sending intimate photos or forced autoeroticism) and not merely a financial advantage (Supreme Court, Section II, judgment no. 41985/21).
While this jurisprudential orientation is acceptable as it guarantees the victim’s protection within the current legal system, the Supreme Court itself recognizes a different degree of invasiveness in the case of virtual sexual violence compared to real sexual violence. Furthermore, the conceptual limitation of limiting Sexual Violence (Art. 609-bis of the Criminal Code) exclusively to the act that generates contact or an action on oneself creates a legal vacuum for sexual abuse via avatars . Since the act of harassing a subject’s avatar is not capable of “materially touching” the person and does not fall within the scope of forced autoerotic acts on the victim, its applicability to Article 609-bis is ruled out by the prevailing case law.
Some of the most common forms of VSV are now effectively countered by two articles of the Criminal Code, introduced or influenced by the so-called “Red Code” (L. 69/2019):
Illicit dissemination of sexually explicit images or videos (Art. 612-ter cp, Revenge Porn): which punishes the dissemination, without consent, of sexually explicit images or videos;
Illicit dissemination of content generated or altered with artificial intelligence systems (Article 612-quater of the Criminal Code) – This new crime, introduced by Law 132/2025, specifically punishes the harmful dissemination of content generated or altered with Artificial Intelligence (AI). The introduction of Article 612-quater was crucial in filling the gap left by Article 612-ter, which only applied to images actually created or stolen, and in combating cybersexual abuse.
Sextortion is classified as extortion (Article 629 of the Criminal Code), falling within the scope of common crimes committed using IT tools.
At the European level, Directive (EU) 2024/1385 on combating violence against women requires Member States to criminalize the creation and dissemination of intimate content using AI or Photoshop (so-called deepfakes ), strengthening protection. It also provides for severe prison sentences and the obligation to provide specialized assistance, such as rape crisis centers and sexual violence centers, as well as measures to remove the material.
According to available data, approximately 90% of victims of nonconsensual dissemination of intimate images are women. The emotional and psychological impact on the victim is devastating, causing anxiety disorders, depression, and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), constituting compensable biological damage. In the context of revenge porn and sextortion , the damage is often compounded by secondary victimization ( victim blaming ), where the woman is blamed for producing the sexual content.
The prevention of VSV crimes is closely tied to the ability to acquire and preserve digital evidence (images, chats, posts) in a manner admissible in court. Simple screenshots have limited evidentiary value and must be supported by forensic acquisition methods that guarantee the authenticity and inalterability of web content.
A crucial element of protection in Italy is the preventive and urgent intervention of the Italian Data Protection Authority (Garante per la protezione dei dati personali), provided for by Article 144-bis of the Privacy Code. Anyone with a well-founded fear of non-consensual dissemination of sexually explicit material can file a report with the Authority. The Authority intervenes within forty-eight hours and notifies digital platforms of a measure accompanied by the hash of the material. This unique digital code allows the platforms to automatically identify and block any future attempts to re-upload the same file, offering ongoing protection.
Cybersexual violence represents a structural attack on dignity and self-determination. The Italian legal system, despite having reacted promptly with new regulations on deepfakes and revenge porn , and thanks to the evolutionary and praiseworthy interpretation of the Supreme Court of Cassation, which extends the crime of sexual violence to remote coercive conduct, displays a dogmatic rigidity when it comes to pure sexual abuse in the Metaverse.
The case law, which equates forced sexual acts at a distance (for example, forced autoeroticism) with traditional crimes, is fundamental for the protection of the victim, but the Court of Cassation itself recognizes a different degree of invasiveness compared to acts committed in person. The conceptual limitation, which excludes assault via avatar from Article 609-bis of the Criminal Code, requires reflection on the appropriateness of the concept of “sexual acts” in the era of immersive environments.
It is crucial that the legislator’s response not be limited to ex post repression, but consider introducing an ad hoc provision, as was necessary for deepfakes , to overcome the principle of materiality and protect sexual integrity as a legal asset, not just a physical one, while ensuring a balance between the seriousness of digital and physical conduct. At the same time, it is essential to enhance prevention and rapid ( ex ante ) protection tools, such as the intervention of the Privacy Guarantor, which are essential to limit the psychological and social harm suffered by women.
Paolo Galdieri
