Italy. Defamation. Ossigeno defends journalist sentenced to 8 months in detention

Questo articolo è disponibile anche in:

Convicted in the first instance on the complaint of the former president of the Order of Lawyers of Nola (Naples) he has appealed

OSSIGENO July 27, 2024 – The Legal Desk of Ossigeno for information, which works in collaboration with Media Defence, has decided to legally assist the journalist Pasquale Napolitano, a collaborator of various newspapers (Il Giornale, il Roma, Panorama and others), in the appeal he has filed against the eight-month prison sentence for defamation in the press that the Justice of the Peace of the Court of Nola (NA), in a single-judge composition, inflicted on him on May 7, 2024. Ossigeno has entrusted the defense to the lawyer Andrea Di Pietro, coordinator of the Ossigeno Legal Desk.

In Italy, the Justice of the Peace belongs to the judicial order but, unlike the ordinary magistrate, is an honorary magistrate on a temporary basis. In fact, he remains in office for four years and upon expiration can be confirmed only once for another four years.

GREAT ANGER – Pasquale Napolitano declared to Ossigeno: “I live this sentence with great anger. I am convinced that I did my job correctly and not that I did not want to defame anyone. I respect the first-instance decision and I am certain that I will be able to demonstrate the correctness of my work in the subsequent stages of the trial”

THE ARTICLES – The journalist responds to the accusations by stating that in reality in the contested articles, published in the online newspaper Anteprima24, he limited himself to reporting the bad mood of the Nola lawyers, who, in large majority had voted no confidence in their president with a correct procedure (as was endorsed by a ruling of the TAR) but nevertheless were unable to obtain his resignation because he did not formally convene the Council.

THE JUDICIAL MATTER – The journalist was sentenced to 8 months in prison, with a suspended sentence, granting of mitigating circumstances, payment of legal costs. The trial arose from the complaint of the lawyer Domenico Visone, former president of the Nola Bar Association and three councilors of the same body, who felt defamed by some articles on a 2020 incident: according to them, the journalist narrated with allusive tones that suggest an unjustifiable obstructionist attitude, the delay with which Domenico Visone formalized his resignation as president of the Association following the formal no confidence that had been expressed by the majority of lawyers registered with his Association.

A CRITICIZED CONVICTION – The conviction of Pasquale Napolitano has aroused strong criticism at a national level. There was: an editorial by Alessandro Sallusti, director of the Giornale, a clear position taken by the Association and the Journalists’ Union, various bipartisan comments from the political world. What drew attention above all was the prison sentence handed down to the journalist.

SOCIAL MEDIA – According to the Justice of the Peace, who repeated the arguments of the plaintiffs’ lawyers, Pasquale Napolitano’s guilt would have been aggravated by the fact that he had relaunched his article on social media. An incomprehensible objection given that this is what journalists and newspapers normally do. The fact that the journalist published the plaintiffs’ reply, thus making their position on his articles known to his readers, was of no avail.

OSSIGENO – Ossigeno has read the preliminary investigation documents. At first glance, he considers the conviction for defamation to be at least questionable on the merits. A more precise judgment will be expressed after the filing of the reasons. In general, it can be said that a prison sentence for the crime of defamation through the press is always a seriously unfair and worrying fact that does not take into account what the Constitutional Court established with the ruling issued on 12 July 2021, n. 150. With that ruling, the Court affirmed the illegitimacy of cumulative punishment (prison and fine) to repress defamation and clarified the limits within which the provision of the alternative punishment of detention is legitimate. The Court also said that a prison sentence is justified only in cases where defamation consists in the activation of the so-called mud machine, or in the use of speeches inciting hatred or instigating violence or discrimination. All cases are light years away from what Pasquale Napolitano published. ASP