Sent a dickpic—distributed pornography? How Article 242 Invades the Personal Correspondence of Russians

Context. In Russia, OnlyFans creator Sonya Marmeladova has been detained for the production and distribution of pornography.  According to media reports, the girl's real name is Sofia Vershinina, on the sale of intimate videos she earned more than 336,000 euros (30 million Russian rubles). The security forces gained access to her private channel, the examination recognized the materials as pornographic. Now she faces up to 6 years in prison.

Today I read the news that another model was arrested in Russia for the production and distribution of pornography.

Yes, she is a woman. Yes, our magazine is still about something else. Therefore, I will not retell her biography, earnings and details of the structure of another "empire". The yellow press will do just fine without my help.

I was interested in something else.

In recent years, there seems to have been more such news. Then webcam models were detained. Then they opened a case against a person who sold content through Telegram. Someone was convicted for explicit photos on a dating site.

Of course, "it seems to me" is not the most reliable method of research. Sometimes it seems to me that I speak German quite well, and then an employee of the department asks a clarifying question - and the theory crumbles.

Therefore, let's take a look at the statistics.

Nothing says anything about trends more honestly than statistics. Especially if you first check what exactly she thinks.

Courts have really become more frequent

The Judicial Department at the Supreme Court publishes Form No 10.3 — "Report on the Types of Punishment for the Most Serious Crime". There you can see how many people are convicted annually under specific articles of the Criminal Code.

Under Article 242 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - illegal production and circulation of pornographic materials - the number of convicts looked like this:

That is, from 2021 to 2024, the number of convicts almost doubled.

In the first half of 2025, another 219 people were convicted under Article 242. For the same period in 2024, there were 179 of them.

It turns out that it didn't seem to me. The news has really increased not only because journalists have suddenly discovered the word OnlyFans. Behind them is a quite noticeable increase in the number of sentences.

You can view the data in section of judicial statistics of the Judicial Department. You need form No 10.3 for the corresponding year.

An important clarification: such statistics are not kept for sexual orientation and gender.

We don't know how many of the convicts are men, how many women, how many gays, how many heterosexuals, and how many people just once trusted the interlocutor with a beautiful profile picture too much.

Statistics show the number of sentences. But he does not explain how exactly the intimate file ended up in the criminal case.

Almost all things are going on the hard part

In 2024, out of 398 people convicted under Article 242, 394 people were immediately convicted under Part 3.

It is used when distribution occurs via the Internet, by a group of people or brings income of more than 50 thousand rubles. For this, two to six years in prison are provided.

Statistics do not share these grounds. We cannot say exactly how many people were convicted for the Internet, how many for working as a group, and how many for the 50 thousand earned.

But let's not depict the mystery of the century.

In 2026, a person rarely distributes digital pornography using pigeon mail. The Internet is present almost everywhere: Telegram, social networks, cloud storage, dating sites and private messages.

The most interesting thing begins here.

Because for the average person, "distributing pornography" means something like this: create a website, upload a thousand videos there, sell a subscription, hire an accountant, and one day find out that the tax office is not your main problem.

But the Supreme Court has a much broader idea of distribution.

One person is already an audience

In December 2022, the Plenum of the Supreme Court explained that sending pornographic material even to one specific person can be considered the distribution of pornographic material.

Not a post in a channel.

Not a mass mailing.

Not a subscription sale.

One private message to one recipient.

The list also includes sending to a group chat, posting on a personal page, posting to a group, and sending a link where the file can be downloaded.

The full resolution can be read on the website of the Supreme Court.

That is, by sending another of his dickpics, a person may believe that he is participating in the voluntary sexting of two adults.

And Russian law can theoretically look at it differently:

"Have you made it?"

— Let's admit it.

— Did you transmit it via the Internet?

— It turns out.

"Congratulations. Public morality is saved again.

It is especially pleasant that she is usually saved after the seizure of the phone and a detailed study of all the correspondence.

This is no longer a theory

In one of the published cases, the man sent a pornographic image to eight users on VKontakte.

He did not create any open channel. The file was transferred in private messages, and some of the interlocutors themselves asked to send it.

The court still recognized each shipment as a separate episode of distribution.

Eight recipients - eight completed crimes.

For each episode, the man was fined 100 thousand rubles. He was eventually released from punishment due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, but the phone was confiscated.

The verdict was published in the database of court decisions.

The case was considered according to the previous version of the law. Today, the use of the Internet directly transfers actions to Part 3 of Article 242, which already deals with possible imprisonment for up to six years.

A very cheerful legislative path: from "drop another photo" to a serious crime in just a few clicks.

But is dickpics pornography?

Not necessarily.

Nudity in itself is not automatically considered pornographic material. Photography without clothes, artistic nude and pornography are not legally the same thing.

The problem is that Article 242 itself does not contain a clear and exhaustive definition of adult pornography.

There is a similar definition in the law "On the Protection of Children from Information". There, pornographic information is information with a naturalistic depiction or description of genitals, sexual intercourse or comparable sexual acts.

But where erotica ends and pornography begins, no one will explain to you exactly in advance.

This line will be drawn after the fact by an expert.

Close-ups of genitals, erections, masturbation, and sexual activity are usually at high risk. The expert assesses what the attention is focused on, how naturalistic the physiology is shown, and whether the image has any other context than sexual arousal.

That is, you can consider the image an aesthetic study of the human body.

An expert may think otherwise.

And, let's be honest, the last opinion in a criminal case for some reason will be a little more important than yours.

If you take a picture of yourself, it's still your fault

There is an even more illustrative case.

The man took his own intimate photos and posted them on a dating site. The examination recognized pornographic pictures showing his genitals in a state of erection.

The court found that the man had produced pornographic materials and publicly demonstrated them via the Internet.

He was sentenced to two years and six months in prison on probation.

The decision was also published in the judicial database.

There was no ex-partner in the case who complained about the publication. There was no secret shooting. There was no production with actors, cameramen and a person who walks around the set with a clapperboard.

The man took a picture of himself and posted photos where adults usually meet, including for sex.

Perhaps the state expected that on a dating site, users would exchange photos of their favorite books and discuss Chekhov.

Does consent change anything?

It does, but not always as we would like.

If a person distributes intimate photos of another person without his consent, Article 137 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation may additionally arise - violation of privacy.

But Article 242 is different. It protects not the consent of a particular participant in the correspondence, but public morality.

Therefore, even if:

– both people are adults;

– both agree to communicate;

- the recipient himself asked for a photo;

- only the sender is depicted in the photo;

This does not guarantee the absence of corpus delicti.

Of course, this does not mean that the police massively create questionnaires in dating apps, ask to send nudes and immediately call the investigation team.

At least, the published statistics do not prove this.

We also cannot say that the increase in sentences is due to voluntary sexting. Most of the cases can relate to commercial channels, mass mailings, webcams, and public publications.

But the legal structure has already been created.

A private message to one person can officially be considered distribution.

Why it concerns us

Formally, Article 242 is neutral. There are no separate rules for heterosexual and homosexual pornography.

But the consequences of such practices for gay men can be more severe.

For many men, dating apps, anonymous accounts, and private chat rooms remain the only space where they can freely talk about their sexuality.

Especially if a person lives in a small town, hides his orientation from his family, works in a conservative environment, or simply does not want to discuss his preferences with a police officer under the protocol one day.

A criminal case is not only a fine or a possible term.

This is a seized phone.

Access to correspondence.

Names of interlocutors.

Photos.

Examination of intimate materials.

And forced outing in front of people to whom you were not going to tell anything at all.

The state gets access not only to a file that it considers pornographic. It gets a map of your personal life.

So is it possible to sit down for a dickpic?

A legally honest answer sounds annoying: it depends.

Not every nude picture is recognized as pornographic.

Not every penis leads to a criminal case.

For the prosecution, it is necessary to prove that the person understood the content of the material and intentionally transmitted, showed or published it.

But if the examination recognizes the image as pornography, then its deliberate sending even to one adult recipient can really be considered distribution.

And here Article 242 ceases to be a law about some distant industry.

She enters the bedroom.

Then on the phone.

Then in a personal chat.

And then he explains that all this was done to protect public morality.

Only one question remains.

If morality is so fragile that it can be destroyed by one dick pic in a closed correspondence, maybe the problem is not with the dick pic after all?