SHORT SENTENCES OF CASSATION

Sentence of the Court of Cassation 3557/2000
Through the sentence of the Court of Cassation 3557/2000 consolidate him to judicial level, the thesis of the insussistenza of the crime. Symbolic it is the motivation of a sentence recently deposited by the judge Diana Brusacà that a 55 year-old nudist has acquitted, native of Genoa for which, the District Attorney had asked the sentence instead, to 300 thousand liras of fine: The motivations of the absolution, anchored here is to the evolution of the common sense of the modesty: "And' an acquired datum the existence of an evolution of the custom that is translated in the tolerance and tollerabilità towards the nudism inserted in the most general practice of the naturism. The increase of the number of those people that you/they practise him/it involves an increase of whom, also not practising him/it, it admits him/it or however you/he/she is not disturbed of it or disturbed in his/her own sense of the modesty or the reservation. He cannot put aside besides from an evaluation of the whole context in which the fact is developed, because well other can be the disvalore of the exposure in a beach of intense frequentazione, in comparison to the exposure in a beach normally set apart frequented by loving subjects the nudism. The jurisprudence of worth is attested by now on univocal positions recognizing only as actions contrary to the public decency those that injure the connected ethical-social rules to the normal reserve and the elementary rudeness, yes to produce uneasiness, bother, reproval, had respect to the common parameters of evaluation brought to the specific context and the particular formalities of the fact. It appears evident that cannot consider him indecent the integral nudity of a naturist in a beach reserved to the nudist or from them usually frequented. The integral nudism, practiced as in the case of the Guvano, it loses that character of offensività of the feeling of decorum and reserve"

Sentence of the Court of Cassation n. 1765/2000
From the sentence of the Court of Cassation n. 1765/2000 the thesis strengthens him for which "the exhibition of masculine genital organs to a woman, even if finished to the purpose of offense or contempt, rather than of satisfaction of sexual impulse, it is not for his/her offensive nature of the common sense of the modesty and you/he/she cannot automatically integrate the crime of obscene actions." This also in consideration of the elementary human physiology where some organs of the masculine and female genital apparatus also develop other functions (particularly the penis develops also the function to eliminate the urine). So you/he/she cannot correctly affirm him, indeed under a physiological and anthropological profile, that the exhibition of genital organs is "for his/her nature" connected to the sexual sphere and therefore offensive of the modesty. Contrarily, as expressly or implicitly also affirmed by the jurisprudence on recalled, the nudity of the genital ones can assume a different in operation penal relief of the objective and subjective context in which is concretely inserted: this way you/he/she can shape an obscene action, when it expresses, also psychologically, a sexual instinct; but you/he/she can simply constitute an action contrary to the public decency, when it is mere exercise of the physiological function of the to urinate; or straight it escapes to any penal importance if you/he/she is inserted in a pedagogic or didactic context (es. during a lesson of anatomy or sexual education) or in particular sectorial contexts (for es. type naturist or salutista).