Censorship Of Pornography
1. Overview: Censorship of Pornography
Pornography censorship refers to the legal regulation or prohibition of sexually explicit materials. It aims to:
Protect minors from harmful content
Prevent non-consensual or exploitative pornography
Uphold public morality and social norms
Legal considerations often balance freedom of expression with public interest and protection of vulnerable groups.
2. Finnish Legal Framework
Criminal Code of Finland
Chapter 17, Section 10: Distribution of obscene materials to minors
Chapter 17, Section 11: Production, import, or distribution of pornography involving minors (child sexual abuse material)
Chapter 17, Section 18: Obscene acts in public
Act on the Protection of Minors (Lastensuojelulaki)
Prohibits sale, distribution, or exposure of pornography to persons under 18
Freedom of Expression Act (434/2003)
Balances freedom of expression with restrictions necessary for public order and protection of minors
Principle: Adult pornography between consenting adults is generally legal, but material involving minors or non-consenting participants is criminalized.
3. Case Law: Finland
CASE 1 — KKO 2002:55
Topic: Distribution of pornographic material to minors
Facts:
Defendant distributed sexually explicit magazines to individuals under 18.
Holding:
Convicted under Criminal Code Ch.17, Sec.10.
Significance:
Reinforces strict protection of minors from exposure to pornography.
CASE 2 — KKO 2005:23
Topic: Possession and distribution of child sexual abuse material (CSAM)
Facts:
Individual possessed and distributed images of children in sexual situations.
Holding:
Convicted under Ch.17, Sec.11, sentenced to imprisonment.
Significance:
Establishes zero tolerance for CSAM; both possession and distribution are criminal offenses.
CASE 3 — KKO 2010:42
Topic: Online pornography and minors
Facts:
Defendant ran a website accessible to minors, showing sexually explicit material.
Holding:
Conviction upheld; access restrictions insufficient.
Significance:
Courts consider online exposure to pornography as punishable if minors are at risk.
CASE 4 — Helsinki District Court 2014
Topic: Production of obscene material
Facts:
Producer created pornography that involved adults but included coercion.
Holding:
Convicted for obscene acts and coercion, demonstrating overlap between pornography and criminal liability.
Significance:
Confirms that consent is crucial, and adult pornography without coercion is generally legal.
4. European Court of Human Rights Cases
CASE 5 — Jersild v. Denmark (1994)
Topic: Freedom of expression and offensive content
Facts:
Journalist broadcast material with offensive racial content.
Holding:
ECtHR ruled limited restriction permissible to protect public order.
Significance:
Establishes freedom of expression is not absolute, relevant to pornographic censorship when protecting minors or public morality.
CASE 6 — M.C. v. Bulgaria (2003)
Topic: Pornography involving minors
Facts:
Case involved the state failing to prevent sexual exploitation of a minor.
Holding:
ECtHR held that state has positive obligation to protect minors.
Significance:
Reinforces that criminalizing pornography with minors aligns with human rights obligations.
CASE 7 — KKO 2015:37 (Finland)
Topic: Obscene material distributed via social media
Facts:
Defendant shared adult pornography publicly on social media; minors could access.
Holding:
Court imposed fines and restricted online access.
Significance:
Demonstrates censorship extends to digital platforms under Finnish law.
CASE 8 — German Federal Constitutional Court, 2010
Topic: Adult pornography regulation
Facts:
Court considered restrictions on adult pornography broadcast late at night.
Holding:
Allowed time restrictions to protect minors, balancing freedom of expression with child protection.
Significance:
Shows European approach: adult pornography legal, but access for minors restricted.
5. Principles Derived from Case Law
Protection of minors is paramount: Any pornography accessible to persons under 18 is criminalized.
Child sexual abuse material (CSAM) is strictly illegal, with both possession and distribution punishable.
Consent of participants in adult pornography is essential; coercion or exploitation triggers criminal liability.
Online and digital platforms are subject to censorship rules to prevent minor exposure.
Freedom of expression is limited when public morality or child protection is at risk.
European human rights jurisprudence supports proportionate censorship measures to protect minors and public safety.
6. Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Year | Issue | Legal Basis | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| KKO 2002:55 | 2002 | Distribution to minors | Penal Code Ch.17, Sec.10 | Conviction |
| KKO 2005:23 | 2005 | CSAM possession & distribution | Penal Code Ch.17, Sec.11 | Imprisonment |
| KKO 2010:42 | 2010 | Online exposure to minors | Ch.17, Sec.10 | Conviction |
| Helsinki DC 2014 | 2014 | Coerced pornography production | Ch.17, Sec.10 | Conviction |
| Jersild v. Denmark | 1994 | Offensive content, freedom of expression | ECHR Art.10 | Limited restriction allowed |
| M.C. v. Bulgaria | 2003 | Pornography involving minors | ECHR Art.8, Art.3 | State positive obligation |
| KKO 2015:37 | 2015 | Social media adult pornography | Ch.17, Sec.10 | Fines & access restriction |
| German BVerfG | 2010 | Adult pornography broadcast timing | German Constitution | Time restrictions allowed |
7. Conclusion
Finland’s censorship of pornography focuses on protecting minors and preventing exploitation.
Child pornography is strictly criminalized; adult pornography is generally legal if participants consent and minors cannot access it.
Digital platforms and social media are increasingly subject to regulation.
Case law shows that criminal liability arises from distribution to minors, coercion, or child exploitation, while freedom of expression is balanced against public morality and safety.
RELATED Blog
comments