Allgemein

Italy: Call for full transparency after Fanpage editor-in-chief surveilled…

Italy: Call for full transparency after Fanpage editor-in-chief surveilled with spyware

The Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) is urging Italian authorities to shed full light on the recent surveillance of an editor-in-chief in Italy and others using Graphite spyware technology developed by Israeli firm Paragon Solutions.

Our organisations are alarmed by the latest case of a journalist within the European Union having their secure communications and sources compromised using advanced spyware technologies, representing yet another serious attack on press freedom.

 

In the wake of recent revelations, we also urge other governments in Europe to launch investigations into targeted surveillance against any other journalists who it emerges have been affected by the same spyware technology.

 

On 1 February 2025, it was revealed that investigative journalist Francesco Cancellato, the editor-in-chief of Italian news outlet Fanpage, was among more than 90 individuals worldwide to have had their WhatsApp hacked using Graphite, a military-grade zero-click spyware sold by Paragon.

 

According to WhatsApp, which said it disrupted the spyware attacks in December 2024, this list included journalists and civil society members around the world. In the EU, it is understood that individuals were targeted in 13 Member States: Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and Sweden.

 

The full scope of the spyware hacking, as well as the number of journalists who were among the 90 individuals worldwide who were targeted, is currently unknown. Cancellato is the only journalist to have come forward publicly so far. It is also unclear how long he was targeted for and to what extent his communications were compromised.

 

Fanpage has published recent high-profile investigations into the youth wing of the Prime Minister Georgia Meloni’s party, the ‘Brothers of Italy’. However Cancellato has not speculated on the reason he was targeted, or by whom, and said that he had never been told by any authorities that he was under investigation.

 

In the wake of the revelations, the Italian government confirmed that seven mobile phone users within the country had been targeted and has said that its law enforcement agencies do use spyware. However, Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s office has denied any involvement in the targeting of journalists and the government has not formally acknowledged the existence of a contract with Paragon.

 

However, according to multiple media reports Paragon has suspended or terminated at least one of its two contracts with the country due to the violation of its terms of use. Like other spyware firms, Paragon markets its products exclusively to state intelligence and law enforcement agencies from approved governments.

 

While investigations have been opened within Italy and the case has received parliamentary scrutiny, the actor ultimately responsible for deploying the spyware has yet to be disclosed. However, multiple factors point to the involvement of at least one state agency from within Italy.

 

The MFRR stresses the need for urgent and thorough investigations to identify the source of the surveillance and how many media professionals were affected, in which countries, for how long, and under what legal justification. Those responsible for the potentially illegal surveillance of journalists must be held to account and steps must be taken to assess why legal safeguards to protect journalists from undue surveillance were potentially ineffective in EU Member States.

 

Amidst a global proliferation in spyware capabilities and a record number of abuses against journalists and other civil society actors, our organisations further call for the EU to refocus its attention on assuring strict implementation of the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA), which sets out new protections for journalists inside the bloc from undue surveillance.

 

Under Article 4 of the EMFA, the use of spyware is banned except in very specific cases including investigations of serious crimes, and requiring judicial approval. Establishing how such surveillance against media actors in Italy and beyond was permitted under current legal regulations, and whether due diligence was followed, will be vital in the coming months.

 

Under Article 4.7 of the EMFA, journalists surveilled using spyware in the EU also have a right to know about the accessing and processing of their personal data in the context of the deployment of the surveillance measures or the deployment of intrusive surveillance software as part of a criminal investigation. MFRR therefore urges Italian authorities to ensure the relevant provisions are upheld in the case of Cancellato, and any other journalists in Italy who it emerges were also surveilled.

 

Given the seriousness of this case for media freedom and its EU-wide considerations, we further support the recent initiative of Italian MEPs to request that the European Parliament establish a Commission of Inquiry into the Graphite spyware case. We also support the recent initiative by the National Federation of the Italian Press (FNSI) and the National Order of Journalists to file a criminal complaint over the spyware hacks with the Rome Public Prosecutor’s Office.

 

Our organizations remain committed to advocating for the strongest possible regulations against spyware use against journalists and other civil society actors within the EU, and beyond, and will continue to assist journalists who believe they may have been targeted by spyware in connecting with experts for diagnostic tests on their mobile devices.

 

*If you are among the journalists within the EU to have received messages from Meta/WhatsApp about hacking in December 2024, please reach out to MFRR representatives at the following secure communication to discuss for device testing: contactMFRR@proton.me

Signed by:

  • International Press Institute (IPI)
  • Osservatorio Balcani Caucaso Transeuropa (OBCT)
  • ARTICLE 19 Europe
  • European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
  • European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)
  • Free Press Unlimited (FPU)

This statement was coordinated by the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR), a Europe-wide mechanism which tracks, monitors and responds to violations of press and media freedom in EU Member States, Candidate Countries and Ukraine.

Library

Trentino, journalism and gag complaints

Trentino, journalism and gag complaints

Between announced complaints and warnings, we heard from 4 newspaper editors, the union and an investigative journalist. First part of an investigation into the SLAPP phenomenon in Trentino.

 

By Paola Rosà

Originally published by OBCT. Also available in ITA.

“The way these complaints were written, I think they have one motivation: to try to stop the pen. They are written so poorly that they don’t stand a chance, but their intent is to send a message, to instill fear in the other party”. There is clarity and acumen in the words of the editor of the online newspaper Dolomiti, Luca Pianesi. All the complaints of the last few years – shelved and never brought to court – fit the definition of SLAPP, Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.

 

The cases recalled by Pianesi share a harassing strategy, a casual use of the judicial system and an intimidating intent as well as the attempt to silence the debate. Like the SLAPPs, the 7 complaints and several warnings received by Pianesi over the last eight years (Dolomiti has been online since December 2016) have also shown much less noble objectives than defending the good name of those who claimed to feel damaged by the newspaper: “At the beginning we were subjected to much more pressure, phone calls, letters, but now I have thick skin. In 2022, for example, I received 4 complaints and 2 warnings, basically every two months I received a notfication. Yet I have never ended up in court”.

 

The underworld: unknown numbers and differing perceptions

While relatively little is heard about gag complaints in Trentino, credit goes to Luca Pianesi for touching on the subject publicly.

 

In a column dated November 21, Pianesi retraced the over two years that had passed between when he was notified of a senator’s complaint and when the judge for preliminary investigations decided to shelve the case, after the senator had opposed a similar decision by the public prosecutor: “For us, who have been hanging on this story for 2 years, all that’s left to do is write. Tellwhat happened”, he wrote.

 

“But for every one we talk about, there are 15 others that one has to deal with”, Pianesi, whom we met in the editorial office in Trento, tells us. “There’s an underworld that a journalist, a newspaper editor, supports on their shoulders, with their family, with their colleagues”.

 

Unfortunately, the extent of this “underworld” is unknown. Journalists here are reluctant to talk about it with outsiders, and when asked, they tend to downplay the extent of the phenomenon, as if the number of lawsuits were an indicator of poor quality journalism: complaints – even those filed by individuals in bad faith – still seem to be considered a professional disgrace, and each case is archived in silence, perhaps breathing a sigh of relief but without celebrations.

 

This seems to be confirmed by the director of the daily newspaper l’Adige, Pierluigi Depentori, who has been at the helm of the longest-running newspaper in the province for two years, and who claims that he has not yet ended up “in court for lawsuits filed during my time as editor”, as “in most cases we receive threats of lawsuits” (also part of an intimidation strategy).

 

According to Depentori, to protect themselves, journalists must keep up to date on legal rules and mechanisms: “To keep colleagues updated, I plan to repeat the training course with the lawyer who assists us”. But when faced with individuals who act “with bad faith and gross negligence”, as stated in Article 96 of the Civil Procedure Code on frivolous litigation, there is no training that can help: even the most careful and respectful journalist can be the victim of a specious lawsuit.

 

In Trentino, the situation seems to be in line with the rest of Italy. 4 newspaper editors (Pierluigi Depentori of l’Adige, Luca Pianesi of Dolomiti, Simone Casalini of T Quotidiano, Ettore Paris of the monthly investigative magazine  Questotrentino) and journalist Laura Mezzanotte, with different nuances, report a professional risk that puts work serenity to the test. They confirm

 

the abundance of at least warnings and, even though the cases are not many, they take very seriously the intimidating power of each individual complaint or request for compensation for damages.

 

Ettore Paris, despite enjoying the free assistance of several lawyers since the 1980s, recalls the tense climate in the editorial office, every time, even if the case is then shelved or acquitted: the request for damages of 800 million liras by a construction company, the 50,000 Euros requested by an MP, the complaint by a winery’s CEO, the lawsuit filed by Licio Gelli’s son. “It’s not about numbers, the intimidation is always there”.

 

The perception at the union is more serene. Rocco Cerone, reconfirmed as regional secretary of the National Federation of the Press for Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol, lets us know: “Although the phenomenon is alarming at a national level, on a regional basis it doesn’t seem to be so serious: at least there aren’t as many reports as in the rest of Italy”.

 

Promised complaints and warnings

The number of threatened  complaints is impossible to estimate: warnings, emails, registered letters or even just phone calls that, in Pianesi’s summary, say: “Don’t talk about me, or I’ll sue you”.

 

This is far from a marginal phenomenon in the galaxy of “legal” intimidation and the forcing of the legal system, a phenomenon that a few years ago the Otto Brenner Foundation of Frankfurt, in collaboration with the Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte e.V. (GFF) of Berlin, analysed in the volume “Wenn Sie das schreiben, verklage ich Sie!”. Studie zu präventiven Anwaltsstrategien gegenüber Medien (“If you write that, I will sue you! Preventive strategies of lawyers against media”).

 

According to the research, carried out in 2018 by consulting databases and interviewing 40 journalists and 20 lawyers in Germany, each newspaper receives on average at least 3 warnings per month. “These preventative strategies, which are increasingly frequent, increasingly aim to block the publication of an article or to influence public perception on the subject”.

 

Interference in journalism, and therefore in the right of citizens to be informed, is thus obvious, but known to few, as it is entrusted to the usually confidential correspondence between an external subject and the publisher, or director of the newspaper. But the phenomenon, as everyone in Trentino confirms, is quite widespread.

 

Luca Pianesi recalls an actual warning by one of the leaders of the Autostrada del Brennero: “Luckily that time we were not the only ones to have been warned, there were also our competitors from the daily newspaper l’Adige. And this allowed us to develop a common strategy and not be afraid”.

 

Having a legal office behind that assists the newspaper without the costs falling on individual journalists is obviously the recipe for serenity. “For us, as a cooperative – explains Pianesi – legal costs are a considerable burden. If it comes to a trial and an acquittal, the plaintiff can be ordered to pay our costs as well. But when the case is shelved, we have to pay the lawyer in full, like those two years with the senator that cost me 2000 Euros”.

 

An original case concerns a complaint that was only announced by MP Vittorio Sgarbi, president of the Mart museum of contemporary art of Rovereto and Trento. Simone Casalini recalls an email received from his publisher: Sgarbi contested some data published by the newspaper and said he was “forced to file a complaint”. Which in the end he did not.

 

“The message is always the same: I’ll let you know that I can sue you, but if you stay quiet I won’t”, explains Casalini, recalling how in these cases a “strong” publisher, in solidarity with the editorial staff and not willing to bend, is fundamental. “A large role is played by the dialogue between the editorial staff and the publisher”, he explains.

 

Monitoring, an impossible task

However, the issue with numbers seems to be above all their lack. “The communication strategy on complaints is decided by the lawyer”, confirms Laura Mezzanotte, a journalist for the monthly Questotrentino, sued in 2023 by the mayor of Riva del Garda and still awaiting a decision from the judge. “There are cases in which the lawyer recommends a settlement and paying, even if you could win in court. It is done for the sake of time, of convenience in relationships. In my opinion, the decision to speak publicly about a complaint depends only 10% on the individual journalist”.

 

Instead, according to Mezzanotte, we should think about a public register of gag lawsuits involving journalists, cases shelved or acquitted should be made public to provide a deterrent.

 

This is essentially what the European Commission asked for in the  Recommendation on SLAPP of April 2022, together with the issuing of what would become the directive adopted by the EU last spring, which however only concerns transnational cases because the Member States preferred to retain jurisdiction over national cases. The Commission had also sent Member States a list of wishes and indications for them to adopt “effective, appropriate and proportionate measures to address manifestly unfounded or abusive court proceedings against public participation and protect in particular journalists and human rights defenders against such proceedings”.

 

The paragraph on “data collection, communication and monitoring” opens as follows: “Member States should, taking into account their institutional arrangements on judicial statistics, entrust one or more authorities to be responsible to collect and aggregate, in full respect of data protection requirements, data on manifestly unfounded or abusive court proceedings against public participation initiated in their jurisdiction. Member States should ensure that one authority is responsible to coordinate the information and report the aggregated data collected at national level to the Commission on a yearly basis starting by the end of 2023”.

 

Over a year after that deadline, the Italian government does not appear to be drawing up that list, while monitoring is carried out by independent entities and NGOs, whether the trade union, associations or consortia like MFRR of which OBCT is a member. Monitoring untold cases is, however, an impossible task, as it is necessary to rely on the stories of the protagonists, who for various reasons often remain silent.

 

“For the most important cases, in the past, we published articles to tell readers about our acquittal regarding a defamation complaint”, the editor of l’Adige confirms; sometimes it happens, not always, and in any case very rarely during an ongoing proceeding.

 

From mayors to magistrates

A lawsuit still in progress involves Laura Mezzanotte, a journalist from Questotrentino sued by the mayor of Riva del Garda. Here the timing is very anomalous, and perhaps the “Romeo” investigation into the connections between business and politics, conducted by the Carabinieri of the ROS and the Guardia di Finanza and coordinated by the District Anti-Mafia Directorate of the Trento Prosecutor’s Office, plays a role. The case also involved the mayor, who ended up under house arrest in December 2024.

 

The contested article, in which Laura Mezzanotte asked who had financed the electoral campaign in Riva del Garda, was published in February 2023; in April the mayor filed a complaint for defamation; only over a year later, in September 2024, did the journalist receive notification. In the meantime, QT continues to write about the events in Garda (“There was no SLAPP effect here, we didn’t know we were being sued”, explains Mezzanotte).

 

The climate at the local level is tense, and when we ask our respondents who they fear most, they answer almost in unison: “The private sector”. While politicians “are more familiar with the game” (as Luca Pianesi puts it), accept the challenge of communication and somehow know how to take criticism, private companies are more “sensitive”, have powerful lawyers and are therefore more dangerous.

 

Magistrates have also targeted the press with legal actions. “I had not yet heard of it”, says Simone Casalini, director of T Quotidiano, “but this is exactly what is happening to us: two magistrates are suing us for defamation, and this only because, in a very balanced and sober judicial news article, we reported three lines from a leaflet critical of them”.

 

The territorial jurisdiction in this case has obviously been changed, and the editor is answering to the court of Brescia while waiting for the decision of the public prosecutor. “It is difficult for us to understand the reasons for an action of this kind, that article seemed truly watertight to me. Let’s see how it ends”.

 

Proposals and ideas in line with the EU

The wait, the tension and the actual costs of legal assistance are key elements of SLAPPs, and media workers are very clear about what the solutions could be, not so much to avoid complaints, which remain a right of readers, but to streamline procedures, to make things less traumatic, to reduce costs.

 

Among our respondents, even those who have not read the 2022 Recommendation, even those who were not aware of the activity of CASE, the European coalition against SLAPPs, and even those who had never heard of SLAPPs, end up suggesting solutions perfectly in line with the proposals of the European Union. Perhaps the only divergence concerns the decriminalisation of defamation. “God forbid – writes Laura Mezzanotte on QT – that instead of a criminal complaint someone who wants to silence you brings a civil lawsuit against you. There it is even worse: defense times and costs are much higher. And there is not even a filter of a judge who can decide to drop the case: the civil judge must continue the case in any case”. The journalist’s fears refer to the current situation, whereby the media are more willing to deal with criminal cases (according to data, archived at over 70%) than with civil cases (more expensive because a trial must be faced in any case, even five years after the publication of the contested article, while for the crime of defamation the complaint must be filed within three months). To bring Italy in line with international standards on freedom of expression, whereby there should be no crimes of opinion, the decriminalisation of defamation is instead requested by the bodies that deal with the issue, including the CASE coalition: in light of the recent Recommendation of the Council of Europe, any decriminalisation should in any case be accompanied by a simultaneous inclusion in civil law of those guarantees that are currently lacking. For the rest, the solutions proposed by journalists and directors interviewed for this overview of Trentino touch on the same issues, perhaps with a few more ideas, from reimbursement of expenses to the humanisation of the notification procedure.

 

“On a procedural level, we should be able to make the plaintiff pay the lawyer’s fees even in the event of dismissal”, suggests Pianesi of Dolomiti. “If it were known that in the event of dismissal the plaintiff must also pay the lawyer of the other party, there would be fewer complaints”. Those who defend themselves from a totally specious accusation, and formulated in bad faith, should be rewarded in some way; but if the case is dismissed, there is no one who can ascertain the plaintiff’s bad faith. “The compensation that arrives at the end of the trial is too late”, agrees Laura Mezzanotte, “in the meantime I had to pay the lawyer for who knows how many years”.

 

Timing remains the key point. Simone Casalini from il T suggests “faster trials, which lead to a reduction in costs and eliminate the real reasons for the complaint: if everything is resolved in three months, the editorial staff will be under no one’s thumb”.

 

“Sensitivity towards the problem – adds Laura Mezzanotte – should lead the prosecutors to take charge of the matter immediately. At the moment there is no fast track for matters of public interest or for journalism, so the times are completely arbitrary and such arbitrariness is risky”.

 

Some hope for a change in the way in which one is informed of a complaint or a request for compensation: “One of the things that bothered me the most – says Luca Pianesi – is the method of notification of the complaint which is absolutely unpredictable: once the carabinieri arrived at my house in uniform, my partner was there with my child. The notification may arrive by mail at home, or at the editorial office, or via phone call from the barracks. Each time a different procedure, you never know… not to mention the notification notice that you have to go and collect at the post office after three days. When it’s a fine I’m very happy, I breathe a sigh of relief!”.

Library

Mettere a tacere il quarto potere: la deriva democratica…

Report di missione: Mettere a tacere il quarto potere: la deriva democratica dell’Italia

La libertà dei media in Italia è sotto attacco, una deriva caratterizzata da una crescente interferenza politica e molestie legali nei confronti dei giornalisti. In vista delle elezioni europee del 2024, il Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) ha condotto una missione di carattere urgente a Roma per approfondire queste problematiche. Lo scorso luglio, in occasione del lancio del report in inglese, abbiamo presentato le conclusioni nel corso di un webinar dedicato, avanzando una serie di proposte per rafforzare la tutela della libertà dei media in Italia.

La libertà dei media in Italia ha subito un deterioramento continuo negli ultimi anni, sottoposta ad attacchi e violazioni senza precedenti della libertà di stampa e dei media, violazioni spesso avviate da funzionari pubblici nel tentativo di emarginare e mettere a tacere le voci critiche. L’interferenza politica nei media pubblici e l’uso sistematico di intimidazioni legali contro i giornalisti, da parte degli attori politici, hanno tradizionalmente caratterizzato la relazione tra media e politica in Italia. Tuttavia, negli ultimi due anni queste dinamiche hanno raggiunto livelli allarmanti.

In vista delle elezioni europee del 2024, in un contesto in rapido deterioramento, le organizzazioni partner del Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) hanno condotto una missione urgente a Roma, il 16-17 maggio 2024. La missione di advocacy aveva l’obiettivo di avviare un confronto con i rappresentanti istituzionali e politici su tre questioni: l’interferenza politica nel servizio pubblico, le intimidazioni legali di cui sono bersaglio i giornalisti e la potenziale acquisizione dell’AGI, una delle principali agenzie di stampa del Paese.

Questo rapporto riflette i risultati degli incontri tenutisi durante la missione e del continuo monitoraggio del consorzio, offrendo un’analisi esaustiva delle tre criticità identificate dalla delegazione. Valuta l’impatto di diverse misure e proposte di legge introdotte dai decisori italiani, alla luce delle più recenti disposizioni dell’UE volte a garantire l’indipendenza dei media pubblici, a contrastare la concentrazione del mercato, ad affrontare i conflitti di interesse e dotare la magistratura degli strumenti per contrastare le azioni vessatorie. Il rapporto include inoltre raccomandazioni dettagliate per gli attori istituzionali e governativi italiani, delineando i passi necessari per contrastare il declino della libertà dei media e attuare le riforme necessarie.

Il report è disponibile in inglese e italiano. 

Scarica il rapporto qui
MFRR 3 consortium logos
Library

Italy: Salvini’s video reignites debate over RAI independence

Italy: Salvini’s video reignites debate over RAI independence

The Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) backs concerns expressed over the editorial independence of Italian public broadcaster RAI. The MFRR further insists that the appointment process of the new leadership must guarantee RAI’s political independence and enforce the highest standards of journalism.

On 14 September, Rainews24, the news channel of Italy’s public broadcaster RAI, aired an almost four-minute monologue by deputy PM Matteo Salvini of the Lega Party. In the video he defends his actions, as former Minister of Interior, ahead of a court case where he is accused of kidnapping and neglect of duty for his decision to stop the docking of the Open Arms rescue vessel in 2019.

The editorial board of Rainews24 condemned the video broadcast, lamenting yet another case of leading members of the government using the channel as a “megaphone” for their statements. In a separate recent incident which sparked outcry, Gennaro Sangiuliano, Italy’s former Minister of Culture, used a prime-time news RAI segment to publicly handle personal matters, feeding into this concern. 

The journalists warned that Salvini’s video, taken directly from his social media, was broadcast unchallenged and without analysis or counterpoints, and as such fell short of the basic principles of journalism. Lega MPs on the RAI Oversight Parliamentary Committee defended the broadcast, claiming it was a relevant news item, and accused the dissenting journalists of political bias. 

This latest incident highlights long-documented concerns over political influence on RAI, just as the Parliament starts to debate the appointment of RAI’s new Board of Directors. The Board is composed of seven members, of which four are nominated by the two houses of Parliament, two by the Ministry of Economy, including the CEO, and one is elected by RAI employees. The parliamentary nominations and the President of the Board have to be approved by the Rai Oversight Committee, which requires a two-thirds majority and therefore the support of other political groupings outside those of the current government coalition. 

There have been calls to reform the appointment process to reduce the level of political influence over the RAI board, in line with the recent European Media Freedom Act, and opposition parties are calling for the reform to take place before the new board is appointed. The outcome of this debate and the selection process will be a crucial test of whether the public broadcaster will remain free from political capture.

MFRR urges the RAI Oversight Parliamentary Committee to ensure that all those appointed are free of political partisanship, they are committed to upholding the principles of journalistic integrity, and to the safeguarding of RAI’s editorial independence.

Signed by:

  • International Press Institute (IPI)
  • OBC Transeuropa (OBCT)
  • The European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
  • The European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)
  • Free Press Unlimited (FPU)

This statement was coordinated by the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR), a Europe-wide mechanism which tracks, monitors and responds to violations of press and media freedom in EU Member States, Candidate Countries and Ukraine.

MFRR 3 consortium logos
MFRR Italy media freedom mission Library

Italy: MFRR calls for constructive dialogue on media freedom…

Italy: MFRR calls for constructive dialogue on media freedom recommendations

The Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) partners stand in solidarity with journalists in Italy and call for an immediate end to all forms of attacks against them. We encourage all key stakeholders, including institutional ones, to join forces in enhancing the protection of journalists and media professionals.

 

Available in Italian here. 

The MFRR is a network of six media freedom organisations committed to working towards a resilient and free media landscape, including through conducting fact-finding and advocacy missions to assess the situation on the ground.

 

Amidst a documented increase in attacks affecting the press and media freedom landscape in Italy recorded by the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) on its Mapping Media Freedom platform, the MFRR consortium organised an advocacy mission to Rome on 16-17 May 2024. The mission aimed to address concerns about the state of media freedom with Italian policymakers, review recent developments and formulate recommendations that align with EU and international standards.

 

Following a transparent methodology that applies to all MFRR missions, the MFRR delegation requested meetings with representatives of several public bodies, journalists from various media outlets, journalists’ trade unions, and civil society organisations in Italy.

 

The consortium always recognises the value of engaging with representatives of the ruling government and opening a dialogue with them to discuss the state of media freedom. This is a standard practice that the MFRR adopts in all country missions across Europe. Despite numerous meeting requests being sent to a number of representatives of the ruling coalition, all of them were either declined or unanswered, which did not allow the MFRR to include their potential input in the mission report published on 29 July.

 

The MFRR regrets that since the publication of the report, some of the journalists with whom the delegation met have been targeted by verbal abuses discrediting their role and work. Under no circumstances should journalists be stigmatised or denigrated. The MFRR wishes to reiterate that the journalists, as well as all the other stakeholders that the delegation met in Rome, were by no means co-authors of the MFRR mission’s report. The mission and the report were carried out with complete impartiality and independence by the members of the MFRR consortium, free from any political bias.

 

The MFRR also emphasises that our report and the European Commission’s Report on the Rule of Law are two independent resources. Both studies are based on thorough and quality research, each employing a concrete methodology.  Nevertheless, it is essential to differentiate them clearly for greater precision.

 

Therefore, we call on everyone reporting on this work, including public officials, to refrain from any kind of attack against journalists or media outlets quoted in the report. The MFRR strongly hopes that the report will instead stir an effective debate about its content and recommendations and prompt competent authorities to address the outlined challenges to press and media freedom in the country.

 

The MFRR will continue to monitor and advocate for press and media freedom in Italy –  as it does for all  EU Member States and candidate countries – and reiterates its willingness to enter into a constructive dialogue with public officials and representatives of the government to ensure a safe, independent and pluralistic media environment, a cornerstone of a democratic society.

Signed by:

  • International Press Institute (IPI)
  • The European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)
  • ARTICLE 19 Europe
  • Free Press Unlimited (FPU)
  • The European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
  • OBC Transeuropa (OBCT)

Italia: MFRR chiede un dialogo costruttivo sulle raccomandazioni sulla libertà dei media

 

Le organizzazioni partner del Media Rapid Response (MFRR) sono solidali con i giornalisti in Italia e chiedono la fine immediata di tutte le forme di attacco contro di loro. Incoraggiamo tutte le parti interessate, comprese quelle istituzionali, a unire le forze per migliorare la tutela dei giornalisti e dei professionisti dei media.

 

MFRR è una rete di sei organizzazioni per la libertà dei media che si impegnano a lavorare per un panorama mediatico resiliente e libero, anche attraverso lo svolgimento di missioni di advocacy volte a valutare la situazione sul campo.

 

Di fronte al documentato aumento degli attacchi alla libertà di stampa e dei media in Italia registrato da Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) sulla sua piattaforma Mapping Media Freedom, il consorzio MFRR ha organizzato una missione di advocacy a Roma il 16-17 maggio 2024. La missione mirava ad affrontare le preoccupazioni sullo stato della libertà dei media con i decisori politici italiani, esaminare gli sviluppi recenti e formulare raccomandazioni in linea con gli standard UE e internazionali.

 

Seguendo una metodologia trasparente che si applica a tutte le missioni MFRR, la delegazione ha richiesto incontri con rappresentanti di diversi enti pubblici, giornalisti di vari organi di stampa, sindacati dei giornalisti e organizzazioni della società civile in Italia.

 

Il consorzio riconosce sempre il valore del confronto con i rappresentanti del governo in carica e dell’apertura di un dialogo con loro per discutere dello stato della libertà dei media. Questa è una pratica standard che MFRR adotta in tutte le missioni nei paesi europei. Nonostante le numerose richieste di incontro inviate a diversi rappresentanti della coalizioneal governo, tutte sono state declinate o non hanno ricevuto risposta, il che non ha consentito a MFRR di includere il loro potenziale contributo nel rapporto di fine missione pubblicato il 29 luglio.

 

MFRR si rammarica che, dalla pubblicazione del rapporto, alcuni giornalisti incontrati dalla delegazione siano stati presi di mira da aggressioni verbali che hanno screditato il loro ruolo e il loro lavoro. In nessun caso i giornalisti devono essere stigmatizzati o denigrati. MFRR desidera ribadire che i giornalisti, così come tutti gli altri stakeholder che la delegazione ha incontrato a Roma, non sono stati in alcun modo co-autori del rapporto della missione MFRR. La missione e il rapporto sono stati condotti con totale imparzialità e indipendenza dai membri del consorzio, liberi da qualsiasi pregiudizio politico.

 

MFRR sottolinea inoltre che il nostro rapporto e il rapporto della Commissione europea sullo stato di diritto sono due risorse indipendenti. Entrambi gli studi si basano su ricerche approfondite e di qualità, ciascuna delle quali impiega una metodologia precisa. Tuttavia, è essenziale differenziarli chiaramente per una maggiore precisione.

 

Pertanto, invitiamo tutti coloro che riferiscono su questo lavoro, compresi i funzionari pubblici, ad astenersi da qualsiasi tipo di attacco contro i giornalisti o gli organi di informazione citati nel rapporto. MFRR spera vivamente che il rapporto stimoli invece un dibattito efficace sul suo contenuto e sulle raccomandazioni volte a migliorare la libertà di stampa e dei media nel paese.

 

MFRR continuerà a monitorare e sostenere la libertà di stampa e dei media in Italia, come in tutti gli Stati membri dell’UE e i paesi candidati, e ribadisce la volontà di avviare un dialogo costruttivo con funzionari pubblici e rappresentanti del governo per garantire un ambiente mediatico sicuro, indipendente e pluralistico, pietra angolare di ogni società democratica.

 

Firmato: 

OBC Transeuropa (OBCT)

The European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)

ARTICLE 19 Europe

The European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)

Free Press Unlimited (FPU)

International Press Institute (IPI)

This statement was coordinated by the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR), a Europe-wide mechanism which tracks, monitors and responds to violations of press and media freedom in EU Member States and candidate countries. 

Library

Mission Report – Silencing the Fourth Estate: Italy’s Democratic…

Mission Report: Silencing the Fourth Estate: Italy’s democratic drift

Media freedom in Italy is under threat, with rising political interference and legal harassment of journalists. Ahead of the 2024 EU elections, the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) conducted an urgent mission to Rome to dive deeper into these issues. Join us on July 29, 2024, for a webinar where we will share our findings and discuss solutions to safeguard Italy’s media freedom.

 

Available in Italian here. 

Media freedom in Italy has been steadily declining in recent years, marked by unprecedented attacks and violations often initiated by public officials in the attempt to silence critical voices. Political interference in public media and the systematic use of legal intimidation against journalists by political actors have long defined the media-politics relationship in Italy. However, these dynamics have reached alarming levels over the past two years.

 

In the lead-up to the 2024 EU elections, amidst a rapidly deteriorating context, the partner organisations of the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) conducted an urgent mission to Rome, Italy, on May 16-17, 2024. The mission aimed to engage with state representatives, institutions, and political parties on three critical issues: political interference in public media, legal harassment of dissenting journalists, and the potential acquisition of AGI, one of the country’s main news agencies.

 

This report presents the findings from the mission and MFRR’s ongoing monitoring, offering a comprehensive analysis of the three most urgent issues identified. It evaluates the impact of various measures and bills introduced by Italian decision makers,  in light of the latest EU provisions aimed at ensuring the independence of public media, countering market concentration, addressing conflicts of interest, and equipping the judiciary to handle vexatious lawsuits. The report also provides detailed recommendations for Italian institutional and governmental actors, outlining necessary steps to counter the decline in media freedom and  much needed reforms.

Download the full report

Silenziare il Quarto Potere: La deriva democratica dell’Italia

Negli ultimi anni, in Italia si è assistito ad un costante declino dell libertà dei media, segnato da attacchi e violazioni senza precedenti, spesso iniziati da rappresentanti pubblici nel tentativo di mettere a tacere voci critiche. L’interferenza politica nei media pubblici e l’uso sistematico di intimidazioni legali contro i giornalisti da parte degli attori politici da tempo degfinisco il rapporto tra media e politica in Italia. Tuttavia, negli ultimi due anni queste dinamiche hanno raggiunto livelli allarmanti.

In vista delle elezioni europee del 2024, in un contesto in rapido deterioramento, le organizzazioni partner del Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) hanno condotto una missione urgente a Roma, il 16-17 maggio 2024. La missione di advocacy aveva l’obiettivo di confrontarsi con rappresentanti istituzionali e politici su tre questioni critiche: l’interferenza politica nei media pubblici, le intimidazioni legali nei confronti dei giornalisti critici e la potenziale acquisizione dell’AGI, una delle principali agenzie di stampa del Paese.

Questo rapporto presenta i risultati della missione e del monitoraggio continuo del consorzip MFRR, offrendo un’analisi completa delle tre questioni più urgenti individuate. Valuta l’impatto di diverse misure e proposte di legge introdotte dai decisori italiani, alla luce delle più recenti disposizioni dell’UE volte a garantire l’indipendenza dei media pubblici, a contrastare la concentrazione del mercato, ad affrontare i conflitti di interesse e ad attrezzare la magistratura per gestire le cause vessatorie. Il rapporto fornisce inoltre raccomandazioni dettagliate per gli attori istituzionali e governativi italiani, delineando i passi necessari per contrastare il declino della libertà dei media e le riforme necessarie.

Il report è al momento disponibile in lingua inglese. La versione in italiano sarà disponibile a partire dall’inizio di settembre.

This mission report was coordinated as part of the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR), a Europe-wide mechanism which tracks, monitors and responds to violations of press and media freedom in EU Member States and candidate countries. The MFRR is co-funded by the European Commission.

Event

Silencing the Fourth Estate: Italy’s democratic drift

Silencing the Fourth Estate:

Italy’s Democratic Drift

29 July, 14:00 CET.

On July 29, Osservatorio Balcani Caucaso Transeuropa (OBCT), the European Federation of Journalists (EFJ), and the European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF) will host a webinar to mark the publication of the final report following the MFRR mission to Rome. 

 

Amid unprecedented political interference in public media, widespread use of legal intimidation against dissenting journalists by government officials, a problematic defamation reform put forward by the ruling coalition, and the potential acquisition of AGI by one of Lega’s MPs, the MFRR organised an urgent mission to Italy on May 16 and 17, 2024. 

 

Relying on the findings from meetings held during the mission and MFRR’s ongoing monitoring of the situation in the country, the report assesses the deterioration of media freedom in Italy. These challenges, indicative of a tense relationship between media and political actors, undermine independent and critical journalism, generating worrying implications for Italian democracy. The mission observed that the chilling effect resulting from the contraction of freedom of expression and the governments’ attempts to silence the press signal a worrying democratic decline in Italy’s media freedom landscape.

 

Last May’s MFRR mission to Italy was led by the Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso Transeuropa (OBCT) and the European Federation of Journalists (EFJ). The mission report was prepared by MFRR partner organisations: ARTICLE 19 Europe; European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF); European Federation of Journalists (EFJ); International Press Institute (IPI); Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso Transeuropa (OBCT). 

 

The report will be published  in English on July 29, with a translated Italian version to follow in the first week of September.

Register here

Moderator

Renate

Renate Schroeder

Director of European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)

Speakers

Alessandra Mancuso

Member of Usigrai

Francesca de Benedetti

Journalist at Domani

Davide Sarsini

Journalist at AGI

Final remarks

Serena Epis

Researcher at Osservatorio Balcani Caucaso Transeuropa (OBCT)

RAI Italia - Press freedom mission Italy Library

Italy: Media freedom coalition sounds the alarm on political…

Media Freedom coalition sounds the alarm on political meddling and legal threats to journalism

Amid the forthcoming EU elections, the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) was prompted to organise an urgent advocacy mission to Italy on May 16-17 to address some recent developments related to press and media freedom. Such concerns included unprecedented political interference in the public service media, legal harassment of dissenting journalists by government members, and the potential acquisition of AGI news agency by MP Antonio Angelucci.

 

Available in Italian here.

Italy’s current state of media freedom raises significant concerns. The worrying trend of political interference and legal harassment undermines democratic principles and threatens the independence and pluralism essential for a free press.

 

During its visit to Rome, the MFRR delegation met with officials of several institutional bodies, such as:

 

  • Senator Barbara Floridia, President of the Parliamentary Committee for the general direction and supervision of radio and TV broadcasting in the Chamber of Deputies;
  • Senator Ilaria Cucchi, Deputy Chairwoman of the Justice Committee of the Senate of the Republic;
  • Giacomo Lasorella, President of the Italian Communications Regulatory Authority (AGCOM) alongside AGCOM board members;
  • MP Valentina Grippo, member of the Italian delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe;
  • Dr Pierluigi Mazzella, Italian Government representative at the Steering Committee on Media and Information Society (CDMSI) of the Council of Europe;
  • Members of the Permanent Representation in Italy of the European Commission.

 

The MFRR delegation also met with several journalists from various media outlets, trade unions, and representatives of civil society organisations to analyse the state of play of media freedom in the country, joining the Unione Sindacale Giornalisti Rai (USiGRai) sit-in dedicated to press freedom in front of RAI headquarters.

 

Most regretfully, the mission did not have the opportunity to meet anyone from the ruling coalition, as all the requests for a meeting were either declined or ignored.

 

Political interference in public media

Radiotelevisione Italiana (RAI), the Italian public service broadcaster, is currently subjected to an unprecedented degree of political interference that risks leading to a potential full state control. Although a certain politicisation of RAI is not a new phenomenon, discussions with journalists from RAI confirmed the unprecedented level of pressure and self-censorship.

 

The delegation welcomed Senator Barbara Floridia’s initiative promoting a national convention (“Stati Generali”) composed of all political parties, independent media experts, and other stakeholders, directed at reforming public media’s governance and funding in line with the European Media Freedom Act.

 

Failure to decriminalise defamation and reform defamation civil code provisions

Journalists, particularly investigative ones exposing wrongdoings by politicians and publishing information of public interest, face an increasing number of vexatious lawsuits often led by members of the current government, including the Prime Minister, Giorgia Meloni

 

Instead of joining the European trend towards decriminalising defamation and bringing it under civil law, and starting to transpose the EU’s anti-SLAPP Directive, the Italian government chooses to go in the opposite direction. The Balboni Bill, which was proposed by the ruling coalition to reform defamation, not only fails to decriminalise defamation and to consider a comprehensive reform under the remit of the civil law. If approved, the provisions of the Balboni Bill risk compressing the space of editorial independence even further and exerting a heavier chilling effect on the journalistic community.

 

Potential acquisition of AGI news agency

The potential acquisition of one of the country’s leading news agencies, AGI (Agenzia Giornalistica Italiana), by MP Antonio Angelucci – who already controls several major newspapers – poses a significant risk to AGI’s editorial independence.

 

If it comes to fruition, the buyout would be in contrast with Article 6 of the European Media Freedom Act, stating that editorial managers must be free to make decisions without interference and that anyone with significant interests in media service providers must declare any conflicts of interest. Moreover, it could set a dangerous precedent that could put other news agencies in the country at risk.

 

Recommendations

  • We call on the Italian parliament together with independent experts, the journalists representative organisations, such as the Federazione Nazionale Stampa Italiana (FNSI) and the Italian Chamber of Journalists (Ordine dei Giornalisti), in consultation with the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) to initiate a comprehensive reform of the legislation regulating Italian public broadcasters in line with Article 5 of the European Media Freedom Act;
  • We urge the Italian Parliament to implement a comprehensive reform of defamation laws, aligning them with EU and international freedom of expression standards;
  • If any acquisition bid for the news agency AGI concretises, regulators AGCOM and AGCM (Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato) should conduct a thorough and transparent evaluation and consider the impact on media pluralism, editorial independence, and conflict of interest, in accordance with the European Media Freedom Act.

 

MFRR Next steps

In the coming weeks, the MFRR will continue to closely monitor developments in the country in collaboration with local partners, and will reiterate the request for online meetings with representatives of the Italian ruling coalition. The final report outlining the key findings with a list of recommendations geared at the Italian government, but also the European Commission will be released in the coming months. The consortium experts are ready to offer their expertise to promote the independence of public media and press freedom in Italy.

La coalizione per la libertà dei media lancia l’allarme su interferenze politiche e minacce legali che colpiscono il giornalismo italiano

 

In vista delle prossime elezioni europee, il Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) è stato spinto a organizzare una missione di advocacy urgente in Italia il 16-17 maggio per affrontare alcuni sviluppi preoccupanti relativi alla libertà di stampa e dei media. Tra le questioni affrontate dal consorzio europeo figurano interferenze politiche senza precedenti nei media del servizio pubblico, minacce legali da parte di membri del governo nei confronti di giornalisti critici del potere, e la possibile acquisizione dell’agenzia di stampa AGI da parte del deputato Antonio Angelucci.

L’attuale stato della libertà dei media in Italia solleva numerosi timori. La preoccupante tendenza alle ingerenze politiche e alle molestie legali mina i principi democratici e minaccia l’indipendenza e il pluralismo essenziali per una stampa libera.

Durante la visita a Roma, la delegazione MFRR ha incontrato funzionari di diversi organi istituzionali, tra cui:

  • La senatrice Barbara Floridia, Presidente della Commissione parlamentare per l’indirizzo generale e la vigilanza dei servizi radiotelevisivi;
  • La senatrice Ilaria Cucchi, Vicepresidente della Commissione Giustizia del Senato della Repubblica;
  • Giacomo Lasorella, Presidente dell’Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni (AGCOM) insieme ai membri del consiglio AGCOM;
  • La Deputata Valentina Grippo, membro della delegazione italiana all’Assemblea parlamentare del Consiglio d’Europa;
  • Il dottor Pierluigi Mazzella, Rappresentante del governo italiano presso il Comitato Direttivo sui Media e la Società dell’Informazione (CDMSI) del Consiglio d’Europa;
  • Membri della Rappresentanza Permanente in Italia della Commissione Europea.

La delegazione MFRR ha incontrato diversi giornalisti di varie testate, sindacati e rappresentanti di organizzazioni della società civile per analizzare la situazione della libertà dei media nel paese, prendendo parte al sit-in dedicato alla libertà di stampa davanti alla sede della RAI ed organizzato dall’Unione Sindacale Giornalisti Rai (USiGRai).

Con grande rammarico, la missione non ha avuto l’opportunità di incontrare nessun esponente della coalizione di governo, poiché tutte le richieste di incontro sono state rifiutate o ignorate.

Ingerenze politiche nei media pubblici

La Radiotelevisione Italiana (RAI), il servizio pubblico radiotelevisivo italiano, è attualmente soggetta a un grado di ingerenza politica senza precedenti che rischia di portare ad un completo controllo da parte del governo in carica. Sebbene una certa politicizzazione del servizio pubblico non sia un fenomeno nuovo, le discussioni con alcuni giornalisti della RAI hanno confermato un livello di pressione e autocensura senza precedenti.

La delegazione ha accolto con favore l’iniziativa della senatrice Barbara Floridia di promuovere una convenzione nazionale (“Stati Generali”) composta da tutti i partiti politici, esperti mediatici indipendenti e altri stakeholder, volta a riformare la governance e il finanziamento dei media pubblici in linea con lo il Regolamento europeo sulla libertà dei media.

Mancata depenalizzazione della diffamazione e riforma delle disposizioni del codice civile sulla diffamazione

I giornalisti, in particolare quelli investigativi che denunciano illeciti da parte di politici e pubblicano informazioni di interesse pubblico, devono fronteggiare un numero crescente di azioni temerarie spesso avviate da membri dell’attuale governo, compresa la Presidente del Consiglio, Giorgia Meloni.

Invece di aderire alla tendenza europea diretta alla depenalizzazione della diffamazione, di procedere con una riforma del codice civile, e di iniziare a recepire la direttiva anti-SLAPP dell’UE, il governo italiano sceglie di andare nella direzione opposta. Il DDL Balboni, proposto dalla coalizione di governo per riformare la diffamazione, non solo non depenalizza la diffamazione e non avvia una riforma completa nell’ambito del diritto civile: se approvato, le disposizioni del DDL Balboni rischiano di comprimere ulteriormente lo spazio dell’indipendenza editoriale e di esercitare un grave effetto inibitorio sulla comunità giornalistica.

Possibile acquisizione dell’agenzia di stampa AGI

La possibile acquisizione di AGI (Agenzia Giornalistica Italiana), da parte del deputato Antonio Angelucci – già proprietario di diversi importanti quotidiani – pone un serio rischio per l’indipendenza editoriale di una delle principali agenzie di stampa del paese.

Se si concretizzasse, l’acquisizione sarebbe in contrasto con l’articolo 6 del Regolamento europeo sulla libertà dei media, il quale stabilisce che i responsabili editoriali devono essere liberi di prendere decisioni senza interferenze e che chiunque abbia interessi in fornitori di servizi di media deve dichiarare eventuali conflitti di interesse. Tale acquisizione potrebbe inoltre creare un pericoloso precedente che rischierebbe di impattare altre agenzie di stampa nel paese e rappresenterebbe un ulteriore peggioramento dell’annoso problema della concentrazione dei media in Italia.

Raccomandazioni

  • Invitiamo il Parlamento italiano, affiancato da esperti indipendenti, dalle associazioni di categoria, tra cui la Federazione Nazionale della Stampa Italiana (FNSI) e l’Ordine dei Giornalisti (OdG), in collaborazione con con l’Unione Europea di Radiodiffusione (EBU) ad avviare una riforma completa della legislazione che regola i servizi radiotelevisivi pubblici italiani in linea con l’articolo 5 del Regolamento europeo sulla libertà dei media; 
  • Esortiamo il Parlamento italiano a implementare una riforma completa delle leggi sulla diffamazione, in linea con gli standard UE e internazionali sulla libertà di espressione;
  • Se si concretizzasse una proposta di acquisizione dell’agenzia di stampa AGI, i regolatori AGCOM e AGCM (Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato) dovrebbero condurre una valutazione approfondita e trasparente diretta a considerare l’impatto sul pluralismo dei media, l’indipendenza editoriale e il conflitto di interessi, in conformità con il Regolamento europeo sulla libertà dei media.

Prossimi passi della rete MFRR

Nelle prossime settimane, il consorzio MFRR, in collaborazione con i partner locali,  continuerà a monitorare gli sviluppi nel paese e rinnoverà la richiesta di incontro online con i rappresentanti della coalizione di governo italiana. I risultati della missione saranno presentati nei prossimi mesi in un rapporto accompagnato da una serie di raccomandazioni rivolte al governo italiano e alla Commissione Europea. Gli esperti del consorzio sono inoltre pronti a mettere a disposizione  la propria competenza per promuovere l’indipendenza dei media pubblici e la libertà di stampa in Italia.

La delegazione MFRR era composta da rappresentanti di ARTICLE 19 Europe, dell’European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF), della European Federation of Journalists (EFJ), dell’International Press Institute (IPI) e di OBC Transeuropa (OBCT).

This statement was coordinated by the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR), a Europe-wide mechanism which tracks, monitors and responds to violations of press and media freedom in EU Member States and Candidate Countries.

MFRR 3 consortium logos
Library

MFRR to conduct a mission to Italy amid worsening…

MFRR to conduct a mission to Italy amid worsening state of media freedom in the country

The growing pressure on press freedom in Italy has prompted the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) consortium to organise an urgent mission to Rome on May 16 and 17. The unprecedented political interference in the public service media, the increasing cases of vexatious lawsuits against journalists, and the possible sale of the AGI news agency will be the focus of the two-day visit. Meetings will be held with institutional stakeholders, journalists, trade unions and civil society.

 

Available in Italian here.

In light of the recent legislative developments on media freedom at the EU level, in particular the adoption of the anti-SLAPP Directive and the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA), this mission aims at analysing the dramatic backlash on media freedom standards, drawing the attention of Italian and European policymakers to the violations against the EU legislative framework. 

 

Following up on the findings of the 2022 MFRR fact-finding mission to Italy, during the two-day visit to Rome on 16 and 17 May, the MFRR delegation will focus on three priority topics: the increasing political pressure on the public broadcaster RAI, the conflict of interest around the selling of the public news agency AGI (Agenzia Giornalistica Italia), and the ongoing reform of criminal defamation laws, in the framework of the increasing number of vexatious lawsuits that journalists face in Italy, often initiated by members of the government. 

 

The mission will be led by the European Federation of Journalists (EFJ) and Osservatorio Balcani Caucaso Transeuropa (OBCT), and will be joined by Article 19 Europe, the European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF), and the International Press Institute (IPI).

 

The MFRR delegation has requested meetings with the Ministry of Justice, the Justice Commission at the Senate of the Republic, the Parliamentary Commission for the general direction and supervision of radio and television services, and to the Authority for the Telecommunications AGCOM. The delegation will also meet with Members of the Parliament who have taken part in parliamentary discussions concerning press freedom in Italy. 

 

The delegation will meet the representatives of local mission partners – Amnesty International Italia, Articolo 21, Consiglio Nazionale Ordine dei Giornalisti (CNOG), Federazione Nazionale Stampa Italiana (FNSI), Unione Sindacale Giornalisti Rai (USiGRai), as well as journalists and other relevant stakeholders to engage in a dialogue on the current condition of the Italian media. 

 

The delegation will hold a press conference on May 17 at 11:00 at the premises of Consiglio Nazionale Ordine dei Giornalisti (sala Ocera, via Sommacampagna, 19, Rome) to present initial observations and recommendations from the mission. A detailed mission report will be published in the forthcoming weeks.

 

The MFRR consortium reiterates its long-standing commitment to improving press freedom in the country, in the wake of the recent developments and political pressure affecting press and media freedom in Italy.

Signed by:

  • European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)
  • OBC Transeuropa (OBCT)
  • International Press Institute (IPI)
  • European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
  • ARTICLE 19 Europe
  • Free Press Unlimited (FPU)

Libertà di stampa in Italia: il consorzio europeo MFRR in missione a Roma

La crescente pressione sulla libertà di stampa in Italia ha spinto il consorzio Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) a organizzare una missione urgente a Roma il 16 e 17 maggio. L’interferenza politica senza precedenti nei media del servizio pubblico, i crescenti casi di cause vessatorie contro i giornalisti e la possibile vendita dell’agenzia di stampa AGI saranno al centro della visita di due giorni. Sono previsti incontri con interlocutori istituzionali, giornalisti, sindacati e società civile

 

Alla luce dei recenti sviluppi legislativi sulla libertà di stampa e dei media a livello europeo, in particolare l’adozione della direttiva anti-SLAPP e della Legge Europea sulla Libertà dei Media (EMFA), questa missione si propone di analizzare il serio peggioramento degli standard per la libertà dei media nel paese, richiamando l’attenzione dei politici italiani ed europei sulle violazioni del quadro legislativo europeo. 

 

Dando seguito alla precedente visita in Italia del 2022, durante i due giorni a Roma, il 16 e 17 maggio, la delegazione MFRR si concentrerà su tre temi prioritari: la crescente pressione politica sull’emittente pubblica RAI, la vendita dell’agenzia di stampa pubblica AGI e la riforma delle leggi penali sulla diffamazione, alla luce del crescente numero di cause vessatorie che i giornalisti devono affrontare in Italia. 

 

La missione sarà guidata dalla Federazione dei Giornalisti europei (EFJ) e da Osservatorio Balcani Caucaso Transeuropa (OBCT), cui si uniranno Article 19 Europe, lo European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF) e l’International Press Institute (IPI).

 

La delegazione MFRR ha richiesto incontri con rappresentanti del Ministero della Giustizia, della Commissione Giustizia del Senato della Repubblica, della Commissione parlamentare per l’indirizzo generale e la vigilanza dei servizi radiotelevisivi e dell’Autorità per le Telecomunicazioni AGCOM. La delegazione incontrerà anche i parlamentari che hanno partecipato alle discussioni sulla libertà di stampa in Italia. 

 

La delegazione europea incontrerà inoltre i rappresentanti di cinque partner locali – Amnesty International Italia, Articolo 21, Consiglio Nazionale Ordine dei Giornalisti (CNOG), Federazione Nazionale Stampa Italiana (FNSI), Unione Sindacale Giornalisti Rai (USiGRai), nonché giornalisti e altri soggetti interessati per avviare un dialogo sulla condizione attuale dei media italiani.

 

Venerdì 17 maggio, La delegazione terrà una conferenza stampa il 17 maggio alle ore 11:00 presso la sede del Consiglio dell’Ordine dei Giornalisti a Roma (sala Ocera, via Sommacampagna 19) per presentare le prime osservazioni e raccomandazioni della missione. Un rapporto dettagliato della missione sarà pubblicato nelle settimane a venire.

 

Il consorzio MFRR ribadisce il suo impegno di lunga data per migliorare la libertà di stampa nel Paese, sulla scia dei recenti sviluppi e delle pressioni politiche che hanno colpito la libertà di stampa e dei media in Italia.

 

Firmato:

European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)

OBC Transeuropa (OBCT)

International Press Institute (IPI)

European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)

ARTICLE 19 Europe

Free Press Unlimited (FPU)

This statement was coordinated by the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR), a Europe-wide mechanism which tracks, monitors and responds to violations of press and media freedom in EU Member States and Candidate Countries.

MFRR 3 consortium logos
Library

Press freedom in Italy: those in power are not…

Press freedom in Italy: those in power are not to be criticised

In 2021, then opposition leader Giorgia Meloni sued Roberto Saviano for defamation. Last October, the Rome Criminal Court issued a sentence against the Italian writer. A ruling that alarmed Italian and European civil society. We had a conversation about it with Antonio Nobile, Saviano’s lawyer.

 

By Sielke Kelner

Originally published by OBCT. Also available in ITA

The defamation lawsuit filed by Giorgia Meloni against Italian writer Roberto Saviano has ended with a first-degree criminal conviction issued by Rome Criminal Court. The judge convicted Saviano of criminal defamation, acknowledging, however, mitigating circumstances: the moral motivation that, according to the Court, led Roberto Saviano to formulate his criticism. While the prosecutor had asked for the writer to pay a fine of 10,000 euros, the criminal court reduced this to 1,000 euros. The verdict was met with dismay by Italian and European civil society. The involvement of a high-level public figure, specifically the Prime Minister acting as plaintiff, along with the public interest nature of the dispute concerning the rescues of migrants in the Mediterranean Sea by NGOs, has raised significant concerns regarding Italian freedom of expression. According to MFRR and CASE, Meloni’s lawsuit is a SLAPP. They also argue that the verdict sets a dangerous precedent that could facilitate further attempts to silence public watchdogs criticizing political leaders. We discussed this with Antonio Nobile, Saviano’s lawyer. Nobile is a criminal defense lawyer registered at the Naples Bar Association, he also acts as an expert in criminal procedural law at the University of Southern Lazio.

 

From the perspective of a criminal defense lawyer, what are the consequences of this verdict on press freedom and freedom of expression in Italy?

First and foremost, the immediate effects are on Saviano, who has a defamation conviction on his criminal record, which is damaging for a political intellectual. Additionally, from the beginning, this trial has had a strong symbolic element. This legal action and the decision to pursue it even when Meloni became Prime Minister [when the lawsuit was filed she was the leader of the political opposition] have a symbolic value because the individuals involved are very well-known. Saviano is a very well-known Italian intellectual, in Italy and abroad. If someone wanted to dispatch a clear message, then Saviano was the ideal target. The consequences for the rule of law are immediately measurable starting from a technical consideration: the whole jurisprudence produced by the ECtHR which has recognized investigative and political journalists as public watchdogs.

 

Have we experienced a deterioration of Italian freedom of press and expression in recent years? 

The state of affairs is worrying because this trial represents a worsening drift. I have been defending Saviano for almost 15 years now, and over the years Saviano has faced numerous lawsuits. The only two criminal lawsuits which have not been dismissed during preliminary investigations, were those in which the plaintiffs were Giorgia Meloni and Matteo Salvini. If we want to consider free expression, even in relation to a sharp and strong criticism, as a sort test of the health of democracy, then indeed, this conviction is bad news. The way in which the entire process has been managed is bad news.

 

During the hearing last October, the prosecutor argued that calling a politician a bastard does not fall under the exercise of harsh political criticism, it rather constitutes an attack on the person. Why does the insult formulated by Saviano not represent an attack on reputation?

It is not an attack on reputation because when talking about defamation in connection to the right to criticize, it is important to assess the context of the criticism. The prosecutor’s conclusions would have made sense if, during an interview, Saviano had gratuitously and casually called Meloni a bastard. Moreover, those conclusions of the Prosecutor’s Office are based on falsification. Saviano never used the singular. Its plural, “bastards”, gave much more the sense of political criticism. However, the expression was tuned to the singular by both the private and the public prosecutors because there was a need to portray a political criticism— directed towards multiple subjects across the political spectrum who had expressed the same negative approach regarding NGOs’ sea rescues of migrants—as a personal attack, which was the only way to rule out any legitimacy to the criticism formulated by Saviano. Exonerating circumstances related to the right to criticize, moreover, were partly recognized in the verdict. In fact, while Saviano was convicted, the judge acknowledged a mitigating circumstance associated with the high moral and social value of his criticism. Nonetheless, in this trial, the prosecution was very worried about the plaintiff.

 

How do you explain the decision of the Roman court?

What struck me from the very beginning is that the day before, another verdict was issued in the appeal against Mimmo Lucano [former mayor of Riace, in Calabria, who had promoted a progressive model for the integration of migration in his town]. Another judicial case that has drawn a lot of attention. Mimmo Lucano, like Saviano, was identified as an extraordinary propaganda opportunity by the same politicians who chose Saviano as their ideal target. Because in defamation cases, alongside with defendants, their ideas are objects of the trial. If I were to give a legal explanation, I would imagine that in the best-case scenario, the court considered the ECtHR judgment analyzing the case of an Austrian politician who was called an idiot by a journalist criticizing him because this Austrian politician had said that even Nazi soldiers had contributed to building peace. The Court makes a very interesting reasoning by saying: this criticism is justified because the politician, while making that abhorrent statement, has in mind a propaganda purpose. In that ruling, the Court mentions the concept of consciously provoked outrage, which according to me is a very convincing definition of the concept of propaganda. What does this mean? The politician, to put it informally, makes a big statement because he knows that he will provoke outrage, for opposite reasons, both among his supporters and the other political party. When this happens, criticism, argues the ECtHR, can be proportionate. Hence, even very harsh criticism is allowed. The verdict convicting Saviano does not address this issue and also confuses some of the constituent elements of the crime of defamation. While reading it, I had the strong feeling that the judge herself was not convinced of the decision to convict, but I think external factors weighed in heavily.

 

What is the context in which the verdict was issued?

A few days before the verdict, Italian politics were dominated by the debate surrounding a Sicilian judge who had refused to apply the so-called Cutro decree [the governmental decree issued after a shipwreck off the beach of Cutro, in Calabria in which almost 100 people lost their lives]. According to the rule of law, judges are called to interpret the law in order to apply it. They are asked to take into account laws’ compatibility with the constitutional framework. Arguing, as Meloni did, that judges must apply the laws tout court and refrain from any interpretation is outrageous. The idea that a judge must apply a law always and in any case, even when the law is unconstitutional, goes against the principles considered essential by our fundamental Charter. It is an extremely dangerous idea that indicates an authoritarian and illiberal vision of democracy on the part of the Government.

 

What does it mean to have a high level public official suing you? 

In Saviano’s case, a head of government who acts as plaintiff in a trial poses enormous consequences for the separation of powers, affecting the independence of the judiciary. If I, as a judge, know that the lawyer I have in front of me will become a deputy minister of justice within a year, or I know that the lawyer I have in front of me will become a member of the Superior Council of the Judiciary within a year, and that therefore my career could pass through the desk of that lawyer, you understand well that independence is compromised. The situations described are not random examples: they concern respectively what happened in the trials brought against Saviano by Meloni and Salvini. Throughout the whole process, we experienced an anomaly, where the powerful individual seemed to be Saviano. And the person to be protected, Meloni, even when she became Prime Minister. This suggests that politicians believe they are entitled to a sort of retaliation against the journalistic community. Today we have reached the point where, and this is what the Meloni government has legitimized, lawsuits are filed no matter what. Or at least the threat of lawsuit, because between the threat of a lawsuit and the formalization of a lawsuit, there is the ocean in between. Threats of lawsuits are made public without any attempt by the plaintiffs to refute the criticism that was formulated against them. An investigation provides evidence of a certain situation involving a minister, a deputy minister, or a party member, and the response is: I will sue you. There is hardly any justification. Because what it is conveyed is that power is not to be criticized. And if it is criticized, you are criticizing it for an interest, so you must be punished.

 

Moving on to the activities of the Italian legislature, in 2020 and 2021, the Constitutional Court had invited Parliament to initiate a broad debate on the issue of defamation through the press, both in civil and criminal matters. During the past year, 5 different bills were presented. Last fall, only one was selected to be pursued in the parliamentary process, the Balboni bill.

I say this against my professional interest, but my idea is that defamation should be decriminalized: defamation should not be a crime. Provided that there is a legal framework in place for those who feel that have suffered damages to their reputation. They are entitled to take action in civil court and obtain damage compensations. A provision which should be balanced by the possibility of declaring the recklessness of the action. A possibility that already exists in our legal system in civil matters, but which should be implemented by establishing criteria of proportionality between the damage claimed by the plaintiff and the severity of the penalty in the event of proven recklessness in the dispute. If we truly want to implement and fully fulfil the spirit of Article 21 of the Italian Constitution, the idea that someone can be criminally prosecuted for expressing their ideas is, in my view, no longer acceptable. As long as defamation remains a crime, we risk interpretations that are each time different and linked to contingencies.

This interview was conducted by OBCT as part of the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR), a Europe-wide mechanism which tracks, monitors and responds to violations of press and media freedom in EU Member States and candidate countries. 

MFRR 3 consortium logos