Freedom of expression, censorship, defamation on the Internet ... The network offers a variety of spaces for the expression and the outside of his ideas together with a comfortable appearance of anonymity that makes it easier, often, poor quality, although the formal exchange of views to be read on the various forum. Salacious comments, insults directed at times, that extremism in real life you do not ever put in writing - otherwise probably would lead to a lawsuit - are wasted on the web.
Often these excesses are lost in the vast sea of \u200b\u200bthe network but, sometimes, by then we land skirmishes telematics to the Halls of Justice. In such cases there is the problem, not only legal, if and what should be limits to freedom of expression of one's thought. There is no doubt, in the meantime, that this limit can only be that established by law and that the state should reduce its intervention in this sensitive area to a minimum indespensabile.
paraphrase a dictum of the Supreme Court in constant theme diin offenses against honor, one thing is certain: freedom of opinion can not and should not be misunderstood with the freedom to insult, offensive, defamation of the other person .
E 'constant principle that criticism, per quanto ficcante e mordace possa essere, mai debba diventare insulto, dileggio, gratuito dispregio della persona; qualora ciò avvenga non si è più in presenza di una critica, scriminata dal diritto costituzionalmente garantito della libertà di espressione, ma di una diffamazione. La giurisprudenza ha avuto modo di individuare il confine tra critica e diffamazione in particolare nella continenza espositiva, essendo inacettabile che la disputa politica o sindacale si tramuti in un attacco alla persona o alla sua reputazione, così: "In tema di diffamazione a mezzo stampa, non sussiste l'esimente del diritto di critica politica qualora - in una lettera inviata al direttore di un quotidiano e ivi pubblicata - dopo aver rappresentato l'inopportunità a charge submitted by a public body subject to line above, as belonging to a given current political opposition, indicate - with a parallel unjustified because no correspond to the facts - the recipient of that office a corrupt administrator like others who were at the center of judicial mishaps for which they had suffered in prison on remand, as the right to criticize, enshrined in Article. 21 of the Constitution allows political and trade union disputes in tones of disapproval too harsh, provided that no transcends measure in personal attacks and does not intrude into the contumely and injury to the reputation of the opponent "(Cass. pen., Sect. V 22/02/2005 (17/11/2004) No 6465).
"On the subject of libel, the attribution of intentional conduct that may constitute a crime, certainly exceeds the limit of continence, and excludes, therefore, exonerating the right to criticize (art. 51 no. pen.), which can not be invoked where these are attributed to illegal conduct or morally dishonorable "(Cass. pen., sect. V, 12/22/2004 (27/10/2004), No. 49019).
It is particularly interesting in this case: "On the subject of libel, is not a legitimate exercise of the right to criticize the free allocation of bad faith who conducts criminal investigations, presented as the result of conspiracy or political strategies of the work the prosecution, because in this case does not express a disagreement, more or less well founded and reasoned choices about the investigation, but stated a fact that must be rigorously tested "(Cass. pen., sect. V, 30-06 - 2004 (09/06/2004), No. 28661). This last sentence shows, correctly, as when someone mouovere accusations he had made certain facts are beyond criticism - which is an expression of opinion and thus more free factual objectivity - is necessary and therefore also the proof of the assertions. Why is such criticism must be expressed in the fact that a finding of facts: where instead be configured as a real "charge" it is essential that the the same is adequately proven.
mean the limits of freedom of expression are clear and well defined and the Internet can not be a free zone where the law does not apply or apply in part. The firm no censorship of what is "politically annoying" can not become a "cover" for defamation and slander.
