Gen 1

New Supreme Court Decision on blogger responsability

It’s quite funny because the case is related to the Bunga Bunga affair so famous all over Europe during this period
The principle stated by the Supreme Court is that an defamation article could be freely distrained (seized).

A blogger posted an article on an European Deputy saying that she had her place in the European Parlament not for her politic abilities but because she was the main organizer of the private parties for politicians.
The lines posted by the blogger, say the Sentence, were not only a politic critics but also underlined a specific responsibility to the lady for the parties’ organization. A responsibility for a “specific fact”.
The lady complains against the article that was removed before (as asked by the author) any judgment on the fact if the defamation was true or not. It was the first application of an interim attachment for an article
This procedure is not allowed for the editorial products (newspaper, magazine) because the principle for the newspaper is “press freedom”.
The ratio was that a blog is not an editorial product but a virtual space where any person could express his thoughts (different from a newspaper) and for this reason the writer could not have the same guarantee that a journalist have.
The right related to every person who could write (and express his thoughts) on a blog has to be balanced with the others Constitutional rights (state by Italian and European).
In this case the Judges have evaluated the comments done by the blogger presented a “fumus commissi delicti” (a concrete suspect of the illegality) and this consideration could justify an interim attachment in the Italia procedure.