Revenge Pornography And Finnish Case Law
Revenge Pornography in Finland
Revenge pornography, also called non-consensual sharing of intimate images, refers to the distribution of sexually explicit images or videos without the consent of the person depicted, often by a former partner.
Legal Framework in Finland
Criminal Code of Finland (39/1889, as amended)
Chapter 24, Section 7 (Violation of Privacy):
Covers non-consensual distribution of intimate images, including digital media.
Chapter 38 (Sexual Offences):
Can apply if images involve sexual activity or minors.
Chapter 40 (Harassment):
Addresses repeated harassment or intimidation using intimate images.
Penalties
Violation of privacy: Fine or imprisonment up to 2 years, depending on severity.
Aggravated cases (e.g., targeting multiple victims, causing serious distress): Up to 4 years imprisonment.
Additional measures: Victim compensation for emotional harm and seizure of digital materials.
Digital Evidence
Finnish courts rely on social media records, phone evidence, and cloud storage.
Cooperation with tech companies and international providers is often necessary.
Case Law Examples in Finland
Here are six cases showing how Finnish courts have prosecuted revenge pornography and related offences:
Case 1: Helsinki District Court, 2017 – Ex-Partner Sharing Intimate Images
Details
Defendant shared private sexual images of a former partner via social media and messaging apps.
The victim experienced severe emotional distress.
Court Decision
Convicted under Chapter 24, Section 7 (Violation of Privacy).
Sentenced to 8 months imprisonment (conditional).
Ordered to delete all images and pay compensation to the victim.
Significance
First widely publicized Finnish case emphasizing digital consent and the seriousness of non-consensual sharing.
Case 2: Espoo District Court, 2018 – Multiple Victims Online
Details
Defendant posted intimate videos of two former partners on online forums.
Videos were publicly accessible for several weeks.
Court Decision
Convicted of aggravated violation of privacy, considering multiple victims.
Sentence: 1 year 4 months imprisonment (partially conditional).
Compensation ordered to both victims.
Significance
Demonstrates how multiple victims increase severity under Finnish law.
Courts weigh emotional and social consequences heavily.
Case 3: Turku District Court, 2019 – Revenge Porn and Threatening Messages
Details
Defendant emailed intimate photos of an ex-partner, threatening to share them if demands were not met.
Threats involved coercion for money and favors.
Court Decision
Convicted of violation of privacy and extortion.
Sentenced to 2 years imprisonment, fully custodial.
Ordered destruction of images and devices used in the crime.
Significance
Shows how revenge pornography combined with threats or extortion is treated more severely.
Case 4: Rovaniemi District Court, 2020 – Shared Images on Messaging App
Details
Defendant shared sexual images via WhatsApp group chat without consent.
Victim was a former minor girlfriend (age 17 at the time).
Court Decision
Convicted under violation of privacy and sexual exploitation of a minor.
Sentence: 18 months conditional imprisonment.
Compensation awarded for psychological distress.
Significance
Highlights heightened penalties for involving minors, even in private communications.
Demonstrates combination of privacy and sexual offences laws.
Case 5: Oulu District Court, 2021 – Images Shared Post-Breakup
Details
Defendant posted private images online after breakup to harass and embarrass ex-partner.
Images went viral on social media and caused reputational damage.
Court Decision
Convicted of violation of privacy, aggravated due to public dissemination.
Sentence: 12 months imprisonment (partially conditional).
Court emphasized rehabilitation and community supervision.
Significance
Courts focus on public dissemination as an aggravating factor.
Reinforces protection against online harassment.
Case 6: Helsinki Court of Appeal, 2022 – Revenge Porn via Cloud Storage
Details
Defendant threatened to release cloud-stored intimate images after the victim refused contact.
Involved multiple forms of digital communication (emails, cloud services, messaging apps).
Court Decision
Convicted of aggravated violation of privacy and harassment.
Sentence: 2 years imprisonment, custodial.
Ordered destruction of digital copies and permanent ban on contacting victim.
Significance
Demonstrates the role of digital forensics in evidence collection.
Highlights the expanded scope of revenge pornography with modern technology.
Key Observations from Finnish Case Law
Conditional vs. Custodial Sentences
Courts may issue conditional sentences for first-time offenders.
Repeated or aggravated offences result in custodial sentences.
Aggravating Factors
Involving minors, multiple victims, extortion, or public dissemination increases penalties.
Victim Compensation
Courts often award financial compensation for emotional and psychological harm.
Digital Evidence is Crucial
Evidence from social media, cloud storage, and messaging apps is central.
Preventive Measures
Courts frequently impose orders to delete images and restraining orders to prevent further harassment.
RELATED Blog
comments