The answer is conditional: the purpose and depth of the account are decisive. Conveying how an offence was committed as a matter of news value is different from turning it into a usable set of instructions. The Law draws that distinction through several provisions.
The three provisions that set the line
| Provision | Content | Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Criminal Code, Art. 214/1 | Publicly inciting the commission of an offence | Six months to five years’ imprisonment |
| Criminal Code, Art. 218 | Commission of those offences through the press and media | The sentence is increased by up to one half |
| Law No. 5187, Art. 20 | Writing and images concerning sexual assault, homicide and suicide that exceed the limits of reporting and are capable of encouraging | Judicial fine |
The protective clause: the last sentence of Article 218
After increasing the penalty, the same article provides a guarantee that matters for journalism: “However, expressions of opinion that do not exceed the limits of reporting and are made for the purpose of criticism shall not constitute an offence.”
That sentence shows that a report about criminal method is not automatically an offence. What matters is whether the account amounts to reporting or to teaching and encouragement.
The difference between two kinds of account
| Reporting (safe) | Instructional account (risky) |
|---|---|
| “The suspects deceived bank customers by telephoning them” | Setting out the fraud script together with the words used |
| “Data were accessed by exploiting a flaw in the system” | Describing which version was affected and the steps used to exploit it |
| “The vehicle was stolen by disabling the ignition system” | Naming the device used and the steps applied |
| “Narcotics were transported concealed inside food packaging” | Detailing how the concealment method evaded inspection |
Broadcasting has its own principle
For broadcasting services the point is separately regulated in Article 8 of Law No. 6112. Under Article 8/1(g), broadcasting services “may not be of a nature praising the commission of offences, offenders and criminal organisations, or instructive as to criminal techniques”. That sub-paragraph sits in the grave sanction group under Article 32/1: an administrative fine of two to five per cent of gross commercial communication revenue and suspension of the programme up to five times.
Security and technical journalism
The line comes up constantly in technical publishing. Reporting security vulnerabilities serves the public; publishing exploit code or a step-by-step attack recipe is a different matter. The settled practice is to report the existence and impact of a vulnerability and to leave technical detail until after a patch.
Do not confuse this with praising an offence
Article 215 of the Criminal Code separately addresses publicly praising an offence that has been committed, or a person on account of an offence they have committed; the requirement that “a clear and imminent danger to public order arises as a result” was added to that article by Law No. 6459. A technical account and praise are different acts, and a single story may contain both.
Summary of sanctions
| Act | Basis | Consequence |
|---|---|---|
| Publicly inciting the commission of an offence | Criminal Code, Art. 214/1 | Six months to five years’ imprisonment |
| The same act committed through the press and media | Criminal Code, Art. 218 | The sentence is increased by up to one half |
| Encouraging publication on sexual assault, homicide or suicide | Law No. 5187, Art. 20 | Judicial fine |
| Broadcasting instructive as to criminal techniques | Law No. 6112, Art. 8/1(g) | 2%–5% of gross commercial communication revenue plus programme suspension |
The special rules on suicide and homicide are covered in the suicide guide and the homicide guide.