Child Pornography and 'Exploitation' of a Minor: The Court of Cassation and the Limits of 'Domestic Pornography' - Judgment No. 32175/2025

The protection of minors is an absolute priority in our legal system, especially concerning heinous crimes like child pornography. The line between what is lawful and what is criminal may seem blurred, but jurisprudence is constantly called upon to clarify the boundaries of criminally relevant conduct. In this context, the significant ruling of the Supreme Court of Cassation, judgment no. 32175, filed on September 29, 2025, offers crucial guidance on assessing the conduct of "exploitation" of a minor, a cornerstone of the crime of producing child pornography material.

This decision, which partially annulled with referral the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Messina of October 23, 2024, focuses on Article 600-ter, first paragraph, of the Criminal Code. The Court of Cassation, presided over by Dr. S. G. and with Dr. A. A. M. as rapporteur, emphasized the need for extremely cautious analysis, especially in situations where the relationship between an adult and a minor is tainted by elements of coercion.

The "Exploitation" of a Minor: A Crucial Concept

The core of the issue lies in the interpretation of the term "exploitation" of a minor, as provided for by Article 600-ter of the Criminal Code, which punishes anyone who produces pornographic material using minors. What exactly does "exploit" mean in this context? Judgment no. 32175/2025 provides us with a fundamental interpretative compass.

In the context of child pornography, the conduct of "exploitation" of a minor, relevant for the purposes of Article 600-ter, first paragraph, of the Criminal Code, must be assessed, with factual appreciation entrusted to the lower court judge, in accordance with criteria of particular prudence when the relationship between the adult subject and the minor depicted in pornographic material is characterized by elements of violence, threat, or coercion, potentially capable of creating a context of duress that excludes, from the outset, the configuration of so-called "domestic pornography."

This maxim is of extraordinary importance. It clarifies that the assessment of the "exploitation" conduct cannot be superficial but requires careful analysis of the relational context. The Court of Cassation mandates lower court judges to adopt "criteria of particular prudence" whenever the relationship between the adult and the minor is marked by "elements of violence, threat, or coercion."

This means that if a minor is involved in the production of pornographic material in an environment where they are subjected to pressure, intimidation, or abuse of power, their participation can never be considered the result of a free choice. Such coercive elements are so serious as to exclude, "from the outset," the possibility of configuring so-called "domestic pornography."

"Domestic Pornography" and its Inviolable Limits

The concept of "domestic pornography" has been the subject of debate (as per United Sections no. 4616 of 2022). Traditionally, it refers to situations where material is produced with the minor's participation, but in the absence of explicit coercion or commercial exploitation, often in distorted family contexts. Jurisprudence has sought to distinguish between less serious conduct and more harmful conduct.

However, judgment no. 32175/2025 establishes an inviolable limit: if the relationship between the adult and the minor is characterized by violence, threat, or coercion, it is no longer possible to speak of "domestic pornography" in a mitigated sense. The presence of such elements radically transforms the nature of the conduct, making it a genuine coercive "exploitation," equivalent to the most serious forms of exploitation. The Court of Cassation strengthens the protection of minors, preventing situations of abuse from being mitigated under the guise of alleged "domesticity" or absence of profit motive, when at the root there is a clear lack of freedom and self-determination of the minor.

Judges will therefore have to investigate with the utmost care:

• The nature of the relationship between the adult and the minor.
• The potential presence of unbalanced power dynamics.
• The existence of threats, physical or psychological.
• The use of violence or other forms of coercion.

Any indication in this regard must lead to a rigorous application of Article 600-ter of the Criminal Code, without possibility of restrictive interpretations.

Conclusions: An Essential Strengthening of Child Protection

Judgment no. 32175/2025 of the Court of Cassation represents an important clarification and a significant strengthening of the criminal protection of minors. It underscores the importance of a thorough and prudent analysis of the context in which the alleged "exploitation" of a minor occurs, reiterating that any element of violence, threat, or coercion categorically excludes the possibility of considering the conduct as less serious "domestic pornography." This ruling is a warning to lower court judges and a bulwark in defense of the most vulnerable, forcefully stating that the freedom and psychophysical integrity of minors can never be compromised by dynamics of abuse of power, even if hidden behind seemingly "domestic" relationships. The decision to annul the Messina appellate judgment with referral highlights the need for a new assessment that takes these fundamental principles into account, ensuring justice and protection for victims.