A man was condemned in the first and second level of the process, because he published on a web site prostitute’s photos. For this reason the Judges charged him to make easy/support the prostitution.
The Supreme Court, with the Sentence n.4443 on 2 February 2012, ruined the first sentence because the fact was not valid. The defendant limited himself to public prostitute’s advertisements on web site. This conduct was retained by the Supreme Court like that of many newspapers that publish these advertisements, that is generally considered like a regular duty performed in favour of a person that exercises whoredom and not prostitution.
The judicial good protected by the Law 75/58 is not only public morality or custom, but also freedom and dignity of the people that prostitute themselves against dangers of the others: this allow to affirm that where the work express itself in a simple publication of advertisements and not in a real and detailed cooperation to prepare women’s advertising that offer themselves for sexual meeting, this is a simple advertisement and a professional work made in favour of the prostitute, not real prostitution, that is a service that the prostitute freely offer and it doesn’t affect on the objective possibility to exercise that activity.
In a different way, The Supreme Court make clear that can be retained that crime de quo is valid, where work of advertisement is supported by a cooperation between the person and the prostitute really directed to realize the woman’s publicity, that offer herself to sexual meeting, organising photographic services with obvious erotic nature and to state an organizational contribution to carry out the contact between prostitute and costumer.