RAI allotted with party-appointed executives: not defamation, but political criticism
Journalist and editor of an online publication acquitted, as the topic is of great interest to the public
3' min read
3' min read
No offence for the journalist and the editor-in-chief of an online newspaper for the article denouncing the lotisation of the RAI, with the appointments of executives chosen by the party. Although the editor named names, his article should not be considered a personal attack, but part of the political criticism, exercised on a subject of great interest to public opinion.
Based on this assumption, the Supreme Court upheld the appeal of the two journalists convicted of defamation in the lower courts, recognising the exemption provided for in Article 51 of the Criminal Code, which is triggered by those who perform a duty. And the duty in question lies in exercising the role of"watchdogs of power", affirmed by the European Court of Human Rights. The Supreme Court recalls that the only limit to the exercise of the right of criticism is that of respect for the dignity of others, "since the same cannot constitute a mere occasion for gratuitous attacks on the person and arbitrary assaults on his moral patrimony".
In the case examined by the judges of legitimacy, the aim of the piece - which ended up in the crosshairs of the RAI executive cited as being in the League, who had sued - was to denounce the political influence on the appointments at RAI.
The interest of public opinion
.An issue with respect to which the debate is of great importance 'in the face of the citizens' right to know whether or not the public service is influenced,' the judges write, 'in making the news by political convergences. The right to an alert on the risk of non-pluralist information justifies the high level of protection of freedom of expression.
Breaking a lance in favour of a free press was recently the Constitutional Court once again with its ruling 44/2025, which indicated the pluralism of information as a central value in a democratic state. The judges of legitimacy, in line with the Constitutional Court and with the judges of Strasbourg, as well as with the Supreme Court's own jurisprudence, affirm the principle of law according to which "on the subject of defamation, when the news concerns the influence of politics or other factors on the media themselves, the exemption referred to in Article 51 of the Criminal Code must be assessed taking into account the need, an essential aspect of a democratic State, to ensure a public debate on pluralism of information, finding, therefore, the only limit to it in an aggressive attack on the person without any justification in the context of the broader political criticism that is intended to be conveyed to citizens".
