Paolo Galdieri : 10 November 2025 15:15
This is the fourth in a series of articles analyzing gender-based violence in the digital context, in anticipation of November 25, the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. The focus here is on the non-consensual dissemination of intimate images and its legal and social implications.
The non-consensual sharing of intimate images, known as revenge porn , is one of the most insidious and pervasive manifestations of Online Gender-Based Violence (OGV). In legal and criminological debate, the more neutral term Non-Consensual Sharing of Intimate Images (NCII) is preferred to fully recognize it as an act of oppression and a predominantly male-driven mechanism of control. While NCII can affect anyone, statistical data clearly indicates a strong female predominance among victims, confirming that this crime is a digital symptom of structural gender-based violence.
News reports are increasingly reporting the unauthorized publication of intimate and explicit photos or videos online, for the purpose of revenge. Until 2019, in the absence of a specific law, such conduct was often classified under Article 595, paragraph 3, of the Criminal Code (aggravated defamation), as it was committed through any other means of publicity. This provision, however, was insufficient to stem the phenomenon, since the conduct, while not in most cases profit-driven, was more akin to a form of emotional and moral extortion. What made this behavior even more heinous was the fact that the “blackmail” involved the individual’s sexuality, sometimes leading to extreme acts.
The phenomenon now finds legal recognition through the introduction of Article 612-ter of the Criminal Code (Illicit dissemination of sexually explicit images or videos), included in the so-called Red Code (Law 69/2019). Its systematic inclusion within crimes against moral freedom confirms its nature as a crime of oppression, where the violation of intimate privacy is instrumental in a deeper attack on the victim’s dignity and freedom of self-determination.
The first paragraph of Article 612-ter of the Criminal Code punishes, unless the act constitutes a more serious crime (subsidiarity clause, relevant for example in dealings with child pornography pursuant to Article 600-ter of the Criminal Code), anyone who, after having created or stolen them, sends, delivers, transfers, publishes, or disseminates sexually explicit images or videos intended to remain private, without the consent of the persons depicted.
The analysis of case law has progressively defined the constituent elements of this crime, providing essential interpretative clarity for judicial activity. The Court of Cassation has clarified that the content must be “sexually explicit” and is not limited to the filming of full sexual acts or genitals, but can also include other erogenous parts of the body, such as breasts or buttocks, if shown nude or in a context that clearly evokes sexuality (Court of Cassation, Fifth Section, judgment no. 14927/23). Another fundamental requirement is that the material be “intended to remain private.” On this point, case law has excluded the applicability of the crime when the images were not intended for a private sphere, as in the case of a sexual act filmed in a public restroom in a nightclub (Court of Reggio Emilia, GIP/GUP Section, judgment no. 528/2021). From my experience in criminal proceedings, it’s crucial to emphasize that initial consent to the creation or limited sharing of material is irrelevant when faced with the act of subsequent, unauthorized dissemination. This interpretation effectively undermines traditional defense arguments based on the victim’s alleged “implied consent,” emphasizing the actual violation of their freedom of self-determination.
The second paragraph extends the punishability to the so-called secondary disseminator, that is, anyone who receives or acquires the material and disseminates it in turn. This passage is significant: it does not punish merely accidental dissemination, but rather targets those who knowingly choose to amplify the offense, as the specific intent to cause harm is required (in this case, represented by the intent to undermine the person’s reputation by attacking their morality – Supreme Court, Fifth Section, judgment no. 14927/23). As a lawyer, I have observed in many proceedings how this conduct fits into a broader framework of post-separation coercive control, transforming unlawful dissemination into an instrument of actual persecution.
The third paragraph provides for increased penalties if the acts are committed by a spouse, even if separated or divorced, or by a person who is or has been in a romantic relationship with the victim, or if the acts are committed through computer or electronic means. The choice to impose an aggravated punishment for the crime if committed online is certainly wise, given that this is the most common form of revenge porn and for which greater protection was requested. Paragraph 4, however, establishes an increased penalty if the acts are committed against a person who is physically or mentally infirm or against a pregnant woman.
Article 612-ter of the Criminal Code is recognized as a multiple offense. Although it is classified among the crimes that violate moral freedom, it affects multiple legal spheres:
This recognition is essential for quantifying civil compensation, since it is not merely an abstract damage to one’s reputation, but an attack that constitutes serious non-pecuniary damage, impacting the person’s identity integrity and sexual autonomy.
The crime is instantaneous and is committed with the first sending of sexually explicit content (Cass., Section V, sentence no. 14927/23). Similarly to the crime of stalking , the deadline for filing a complaint is 6 months, and the complaint can only be withdrawn during the proceedings.
Finally, the Court of Cassation has definitively clarified that revenge porn constitutes an autonomous crime and is not subsumed by stalking , but the formal concurrence between Article 612-bis and Article 612-ter of the Criminal Code is plausible, considering that the legal rights protected by the respective criminal provisions do not appear to be totally overlapping.
In court proceedings, the burden on the victim is not trivial. Collecting digital evidence relating to the dissemination is a crucial step: for admissibility in court, it is essential that the material (images, chats, web pages) be collected in an unalterable, authentic manner, and compliant with digital forensics best practices . In my dual role as a lawyer and professor, I have found that in many cases, the lack of rigorous forensic standards has unfortunately led to the exclusion of evidence, denying justice due to a technical flaw in data acquisition and perpetuating procedural victimization.
The revenge porn landscape has been rapidly transformed by the advancement of generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems, which enable the creation and dissemination of altered or falsified multimedia content ( deepfakes ).
The Italian legal system has responded to this challenge with the new crime of Artificial Manipulation of Images and Videos (Art. 612-quater of the Criminal Code), introduced by Law 132/2025. This provision fills a gap: Article 612-ter, in fact, required the images to have been “created or stolen” and “intended to remain private,” requirements that did not apply to a deepfake , an image that never actually existed.
The new Article 612-quater specifically punishes the harmful dissemination of AI-generated or altered content, ensuring that virtual sexual abuse is not immune and strengthening the legal system’s focus on the sexual dignity and moral freedom of individuals.
The seriousness of the phenomenon is consistently confirmed by news reports involving the systematic use of AI to create non-consensual sexually explicit content targeting women in public roles. Platforms, such as forums using “AI undress anybody” technologies, have been identified for distributing dozens of digitally manipulated photos of female presenters, singers, actresses, and politicians.
These sites often operate in uncontrolled spaces, such as forums with millions of users and sections dedicated to celebrities, where registration requires only a self-declaration of adulthood. Despite the bitterness of the violation, some victims have publicly denounced the act as “violence and abuse that undermines dignity.”
The act of virtually “undressing” a face and body, without consent, has been rightly defined as “virtual rape,” emphasizing that thanks to the new law (Art. 612-quater of the Criminal Code), anyone who rapes with a click is now a criminal punishable by very severe penalties.
The fight against revenge porn is based on a double level of intervention: criminal prosecution (repressive) and emergency administrative action.
A key pillar for prevention and rapid removal is the intervention of the Italian Data Protection Authority, as provided for by Article 144-bis of the Privacy Code. This procedure allows the victim to submit an urgent report. The Authority takes action within forty-eight hours to contain the potential spread. Blocking occurs through the hash fingerprint, a unique code that allows platforms to automatically identify and block any future attempts to re-upload the same file, ensuring ongoing protection against virality.
Despite the robustness of the legal framework, the exponential increase in recorded crimes indicates that repressive legislation is insufficient. The problem is not only legal, but profoundly cultural, fueled by secondary victimization ( victim blaming ): the act of blaming the victim for consenting to the production of the material.
To transform laws into effective protection, as I advocate in my academic and professional work, a strategic commitment is needed that includes:
The ultimate effectiveness of the fight lies in bridging the gap between legal sophistication and cultural backwardness, ensuring that the sexual dignity and moral freedom of people, especially women, are protected as quickly as an image can go viral.
Paolo Galdieri