The state continuously produces new forms of crime or makes older ones more severe. Among them, Article 348A of the Penal Code prosecutes pornography as a crime when it is directed against minors, seeking to protect children who are at immediate risk from those who exploit the weakness of minority for profit, without regard for the consequences of their conduct.

Because this provision is relatively recent, it does not yet have a rich body of case law. It is therefore not easy to judge whether the provision has been successful and whether its legislative design has proved effective in practice.

Nevertheless, the limited case law produced so far allows certain observations and good-faith criticism. These are useful for drawing conclusions about the provision's significance in protecting society from this form of criminality and, more specifically, in protecting minors from repeated attacks by ruthless offenders.

To show society's reaction to criminality connected with childhood, innocence, the inability of children to resist and minority in general, the legislature classified this conduct as a felony when certain conditions are met.

In other words, the crime has been structured and defined in law with respect for Article 7 of the Constitution, so that it receives the precise description required in criminal law. As is well known, not every behavior classified as criminal is described with the same degree of precision.

When specific acts are elevated to crimes, and especially to felonies, the prosecuting authority must act with particular care, seriousness and prudence. It must avoid heated prosecutions against persons considered suspicious merely because the consequences for an alleged offender are so grave.

The provision is, on the one hand, a tool for combating the corresponding criminal conduct by prosecuting those who commit acts classified as felonies. On the other hand, it is also a powerful weapon given to the state prosecuting mechanism. It must be activated and used with knowledge, prudence and extreme caution so that it achieves its purpose without collateral damage.

Collateral damage means the incrimination of unsuspecting, law-abiding and essentially defenseless citizens by characterizing conduct that may be criminally irrelevant as felony conduct, with all that this entails for them.

These brief thoughts were prompted by a specific case. Presenting that case concisely can help avoid abuses of the provision, indiscriminate attacks by prosecuting and police authorities, the criminalization of legally indifferent acts, and the literal construction of guilty persons. Such misuse overburdens state officials and distracts them from genuinely criminal conduct, allowing real offenders to remain unpunished and uncontrolled.

A wider dialogue should open on the crime of child pornography and the way courts, especially in Greece, confront it. The crucial question is whether social and judicial reaction has succeeded or failed in eliminating the phenomenon while preserving the guarantees of criminal justice.