there was no defamation. The right to criticize is safe – Cristiano Puglisi’s blog

The poster of the exhibition which should have been held in December 2018 I rarely write about myself. In this case, however, it is useful to make an exception. In 15 years of journalistic activity …

there was no defamation. The right to criticize is safe – Cristiano Puglisi's blog

The poster of the exhibition which should have been held in December 2018

I rarely write about myself. In this case, however, it is useful to make an exception. In 15 years of journalistic activity and as a communicator, on only one occasion have I found myself involved in a trial for the crime of defamation. It was (someone will have read about it) the story “Porn for children”. I’ll summarize it briefly: on 13 December 2018, the inauguration of an exhibition of sexual drawings should have been held in a public place in Milan (“Children’s porn”in fact, was the pseudonym of the artist who stood out on the promotional material of the event), outlined mimicking a childish and cartoonish style. As expected, there were numerous controversies (of all political colors, moreover) that accompanied the announcement of the provocative exhibition which, in the end, did not take place. After the choice to cancel it, on December 3, 2018, I wrote about this blog a short commentary article, entitled “Porn for children: demonic horror in chic Milan”. The content was certainly strong, but in no way did it go beyond, as established by a now irrevocable sentence, a (sacrosanct, I would say in this case) right of criticism.

Well, I was sued, together with other personalities (politicians, not journalists: among these a regional councilor of the Northern League at the time, Massimiliano Bastoni and the current Fratelli d’Italia MEP Carlo Fidanza) by the owners of the place that was supposed to host the event. We thought, naturally, that the complaint would be easily dismissed, given the conditions, which seemed to us to be typical of a banal ideological controversy. Also because, among the many who could have been reported, given the comments circulating online in those days, those who were “chosen” were exclusively representatives of centre-right parties and myself, blogger on a newspaper certainly characterized by a precise ideal universe of reference. Instead we were sent to trial. At first instance, in 2023, I was sentenced, together with Bastoni (the Hon. Fidanza’s proceedings, by virtue of the “parliamentary shield” followed other tracks) to a fine of 5 thousand euros and to compensate the artist and the owners of the venue with ( absurd) total sum of 25 thousand euros. This, in my case, because, according to the judge, “(…) the tenor of the title ‘Porno for children, demonic horror in chic Milan’, combined with the publication of the poster of the event was in itself sufficient to damage the reputation of the illustrator and of the cultural center that had made itself available to give you space(…)” and also because, in the aforementioned article, I declared that the “the victims of the event that should have been held on 12/13/2018 were children”while, according to the magistrate’s interpretation, “the comics did not depict any child engaged in sexual acts, nor was the event dedicated to an audience of minors, the artist simply translated images with an abstractly erotic content into playful language, representing them not as an adult would have done, but as he could make a baby if he had the chance to draw them. The intent was evidently to arouse laughter among adults (…) certainly not to entice children or to introduce them to the topic of sexuality (…)”.

The lawyer Marco Martini of the Monza Court (photo by the Martini Zecchetti Law Firm)

Naturally we decided to appeal to the second instance. My lawyer, the lawyer Marco Martini of the Monza Court (a splendid professional, to whom I will always be grateful), wrote in his request for acceptance of the grounds of appeal that “the matter in question clearly lends itself to being addressed through the very personal lens of the subject who approaches it, the result of his own cultural, ideological, political, religious and moral baggage. Unfortunately, even the person who wrote the motivation was unable to escape the influence of his own personal beliefs, which overlapped with the role of judge, preventing him from objectively evaluating the evidentiary material developed during the trial, and which led him more to defend the body that promoted the exhibition and the art of the author of the drawings exhibited against anyone who instead criticized them, rather than dedicating itself to evaluating the existence of the crime, which seems to arise as a mere consequence of a much broader and only partly legal reasoning ”. It was also observed that “thethe contested Sentence claims that the exhibition was not aimed at children and that the reference to the latter was to be made in relation to the cartoonish style of the illustrations. However, the author’s intentions do not appear to be made explicit in any way, which is why what takes on importance is the way in which, regardless of them (because, in fact, they were not made clear), any spectator could have interpreted the expression ‘Children’s porn’. It is easy to note how, in Italian, it takes on a very specific meaning, the preposition ‘per’ being indicative of a specific purpose. Thus ‘children’s porn’ is synonymous with porn ‘intended’ for children, just as ‘Children’s Songs’ or ‘Children’s Films’ are usually understood to be songs or films intended for a child audience. Therefore, it was more than natural, in the present case, to conclude that the ‘pornography’ was aimed at minors. Which in itself would be enough to arouse the strongest disapproval on the part of any individual of average morality or rationality. That pornography can be made ‘for children’ is an intrinsically reprehensible idea regardless of anyone’s religious, political or ideal orientation. A pornographic image accompanied by such a title – ‘porn for children’ – could hardly fail to arouse harshly critical points of view. And this, after all, was probably the author’s intent, who, by playing on provocation, aimed to arouse a ‘scandalized’ reaction. It is not clear why otherwise he would have deliberately chosen an equally ambiguous name.” At the hearing on 25 March 2024, lawyer Martini’s motivations found the consent of the Attorney General, who asked for them to be accepted.

Well, after the absurd theatrics that took place in the first instance and months (or rather, years) of worries and sleepless nights for the sole fault of having expressed a legitimate, however harsh, objection to a deliberately provocative cultural event (frankly, it would be difficult affirm the contrary), the undersigned (together with the co-defendant, Massimiliano Bastoni) was acquitted by the Court of Appeal of Milan – Criminal Section III, because “The fact does not constitute a crime“. The Court, in particular, noted, among other things, that “the defendants (…) simply gave a reading of the content of the poster (of the event, Nda) corresponding to the one indicated above, i.e. to the literal data of the same and they expressed their criticism with certainly strong terms, but corresponding to the indignation provoked by the idea that an exhibition with a similar content was organized in the city (…) and in any case with expressions not such as to exceed the limit of continence”. The sentence became irrevocable on 11 September 2024. A great satisfaction, from a personal and professional point of view, certainly. But, above all, a good signal for those who, despite the dark times characterized by an increasingly pressing ideological censorship against anyone who dares to question the achievements of a supposed “progress”, still consider freedom of expression an inalienable value.