Thessaloniki: Prosecutor in case of revenge porn told things by name

The trial of a case of vengeful pornography reached a court in Thessaloniki and all those in the audience listened carefully to what she said about it and especially about the attitude of those accused and the excuses they put forward. “I worry about where we go as a society. And we’re not doing well, we all know. We’ve come to train young people to self-enhancing, not only in love, but on every level. They only care about themselves, but not others. We must train young people about how they will behave when they grow up in their families.” In these words, the prosecutor from the head office raised a social phenomenon that takes on increasing proportions, also employing the audiences of the courts: that of vindictive pornography or revenge porn such as the international term. The case All usually starts with the so-called sexting, sending an innocent photo or video from a victim, but with unpredictable dimensions. That is how it happened in the case that the prosecutor of the Trimelis Defects a court of Thessaloniki. A 19-year-old (now) sent in April 2020 – via popular social media – a personal photo to a 24-year-old (now) with whom they spoke online. They had met at the camp with the young man then looking for her to make her a “friend”. Indeed, the two youngsters developed communication with each other and at some point – as the minor then denounced – the young man urged her to send a personal photograph, in the form of temporary viewing and later deletion (“bomb”), which she did. In the next few days, however, as the complainant said, this picture seems to have resulted in someone common to them. The young lady addressed her mother and decided to proceed with a complaint to the Department of Electronic Crime DEA. The indictment that was drafted concerned the offence of child pornography, as police investigation showed no evidence of sharing the material at issue. The young man in his apology denied the charge, while stating that he did not know about the chastity of the complainant and that he did not demand the mission of the photo, which he did not in any case move, as he said. The prosecutor was not convinced by his words and asked for his guilt. “Behind angelically personal hiding people cynical. Did the girl have to apologize for being provocative?” she wondered in her speech. The court was drafted with her proposal and found the defendant guilty, imposing a five-month sentence, with a three-year suspension, with the recognition of her extenuating post-pubescent age.