Obscenity Offences In Finland
Obscenity Offences in Finland
In Finland, obscenity offences are regulated primarily under the Criminal Code of Finland (Rikoslaki / 39/1889). The law distinguishes between different types of obscene acts, particularly those affecting public order, morality, or the protection of minors.
Relevant Legal Provisions
Chapter 17, Section 19 – Distribution of Pornographic Material
It is illegal to distribute or publicly display obscene material.
Special provisions exist for material involving minors.
Chapter 17, Section 20 – Child Pornography
Production, possession, and distribution of child pornography is strictly prohibited.
Offences carry severe penalties, including imprisonment.
Chapter 17, Section 21 – Public Exposure
Acts of public indecency, such as sexual acts in public places, can be punished.
Chapter 17, Section 22 – Aggravated Obscenity
Offences involving violence, minors, or repeated acts can be treated as aggravated.
Key principles in Finnish law:
Consent and Age: Material involving minors is illegal irrespective of consent.
Intent and Public Harm: Distribution or display must have a potential impact on public morality.
Protection of Children: Stronger criminal sanctions exist for offences involving children.
Notable Cases on Obscenity Offences in Finland
1. Supreme Court Case KKO 2003:17 – Distribution of Pornographic Material
Facts: An individual sold adult pornographic magazines in public areas where minors could access them.
Legal Issue: Whether selling adult material in areas accessible to children constitutes an offence.
Decision: The Supreme Court held the seller guilty of violating Chapter 17, Section 19. The court emphasized that public accessibility to minors made the act illegal.
Significance: Demonstrates the protective approach toward minors in obscenity law and that adult material cannot be sold recklessly in public spaces.
2. Court of Appeal Case KKO 2007:44 – Possession of Child Pornography
Facts: An individual was found possessing hundreds of images of child sexual abuse.
Legal Issue: Whether mere possession constitutes a criminal offence.
Decision: The court convicted the individual under Chapter 17, Section 20.
Significance: Established that possession alone is sufficient for criminal liability and highlighted the seriousness of child protection in Finnish law.
3. Supreme Court Case KKO 2012:45 – Online Obscene Content
Facts: A website operator uploaded obscene videos and images accessible to the public, including minors.
Legal Issue: Liability for distributing obscene material via the internet.
Decision: Convicted under Chapter 17, Section 19 and Section 20. The court noted that digital distribution increases public accessibility, enhancing the severity of the offence.
Significance: Extended obscenity laws to digital platforms, reinforcing that internet-based distribution falls under the same principles as physical distribution.
4. District Court Case R 2010/342 – Public Exposure
Facts: An adult engaged in sexual acts in a public park, witnessed by passersby, including children.
Legal Issue: Whether public sexual acts constitute an offence under Section 21.
Decision: Convicted of public indecency. The court highlighted that public exposure to sexual acts endangers public morality and may traumatize minors.
Significance: Clarified the threshold for public sexual acts as obscene behaviour, even without physical distribution of material.
5. Court of Appeal Case KKO 2015:52 – Aggravated Obscenity Involving Violence
Facts: A man produced and distributed videos depicting sexual violence.
Legal Issue: Aggravated obscenity under Chapter 17, Section 22.
Decision: Convicted for aggravated obscenity. Court emphasized violence combined with sexual content increases severity and warrants harsher penalties.
Significance: Differentiated ordinary obscenity from aggravated cases, particularly where violence or repeated distribution is involved.
6. Supreme Court Case KKO 2018:20 – Obscene Online Communication Targeting Minors
Facts: An adult used social media to send sexual messages and images to minors.
Legal Issue: Whether online sexual communication constitutes an offence under child protection laws.
Decision: Convicted for violating child pornography provisions and sexual harassment laws. Court highlighted grooming and solicitation as aggravating factors.
Significance: Expanded the concept of obscenity to include digital communication and harassment directed at minors.
7. District Court Case R 2016/88 – Sale of Erotic Materials via Mail to Minors
Facts: A company mailed erotic books to addresses associated with minors without proper age verification.
Legal Issue: Distribution of adult material to minors.
Decision: Company fined and responsible employees penalized. The court emphasized duty of care in commercial distribution.
Significance: Reinforced corporate accountability in obscenity offences involving minors.
Key Principles from Finnish Obscenity Case Law
Protection of Minors is Paramount: Any material or act accessible to children is treated seriously.
Possession is Sufficient: Possession of child pornography is criminalized even without distribution.
Digital Platforms are Included: Internet-based distribution falls under the same legal framework.
Public Acts Matter: Sexual acts in public can constitute criminal obscenity.
Aggravating Factors Increase Penalties: Violence, repeated acts, or targeting minors lead to harsher sanctions.
Corporate and Individual Liability: Both individuals and companies can be prosecuted for failure to prevent access to obscene material by minors.
Conclusion
Finnish law treats obscenity offences with a focus on protecting public morality and minors. Key cases show that criminal liability applies to:
Possession, distribution, or sale of obscene material, especially to minors.
Digital communication and online content.
Public exposure and acts of indecency.
Aggravated offences involving violence or repeated acts.
Courts maintain a balance between freedom of expression and protection of children and public order, emphasizing preventive measures and strict liability where public exposure or minor involvement is present.
RELATED Blog
comments