Georgia's Constitutional Court has effectively legalized the production and distribution of pornography, ruling in favor of a claim that the existing definition of "pornography" is unspecific and can be interpreted in different ways, OC Media reports.
The Nov. 4 ruling states that creating, distributing or advertising pornographic works, prints, images or similar items is punishable by up to two years in prison.
However, the four judges who heard the case unanimously concluded that the law leaves unduly wide latitude for interpretation, which could create grounds for arbitrariness and injustice.
They stated that the law violated the fundamental principle of criminal law - "no punishment without law."
As the judges ruled, the current law does not distinguish between pornography and erotic material, while pornography necessarily implies bodily penetration, nudity or depiction of sexual activity without the display of genitals.
The judges also found the term obscenity used to define pornography in Georgia law to be too abstract.
They ordered lawmakers to develop a clearer definition of pornography by May 2023.
In their opinion, under the current law, it would be impossible to rely on accurate legal advice to avoid criminal charges or even two years in prison, Georgi Gotsiridze, a constitutional litigation lawyer at the Georgian Young Lawyers Association (GYLA), told OC Media.
This ban was challenged by Giorgi Logua.
According to Gotsiridze, in 2017, prosecutors charged Logua and 11 other individuals with publishing pornography created outside of Georgia on their website.
Although the trial court acquitted Logua, he appealed to the constitutional court after prosecutors appealed the decision.
Logua argued that the law violated the constitution, which states that "no one may be prosecuted for an act that is not a crime."
Despite the repeal of the ban on pornography, the Constitutional Court did not explicitly classify it as "free speech.
The court was evenly divided on the issue, with two of the four justices stating that making such a ruling was unnecessary given the lack of a clear definition of pornography in Georgia's legal system.
Judges George Tevdorashvili and George Kverenchkhiladze argued that the creation and distribution of pornography by adults is freedom of speech. They called any total restriction illogical.
Two other judges said that such a ban encourages people to self-censor for fear of prosecution.
They noted that they shared the plaintiff's position that the rule unreasonably restricts the right to distribute pornographic materials when the recipient is an adult who actively seeks exposure to these materials.
Stressing the need to protect minors, the judges also noted that the unprecedented role of the Internet in the availability of pornography, including on domains registered abroad, makes the effectiveness of the ban challenged by the plaintiff miserable.
In its ruling, the court instructed lawmakers to develop new rules to protect minors or adults who have not searched for pornographic material online.
