"Coward," "cowardly," "rabbit," "slipper," and "troglodyte of law, economics, and finance." These are some of the descriptions—along with the accusation of "threatening mayors"—that journalist Mauro Pili gave to the then sole director of Abbanoa, Alessandro Ramazzotti, as the dispute over regulatory adjustments and the class action lawsuit filed by the former regional president raged. For those words, published on social media, Pili was convicted of aggravated defamation by the Cagliari Court of Appeal. Now the Supreme Court has overturned the lower court's ruling and ruled an acquittal without remand.

The Supreme Court found no crime: the ruling established, in short, that the right to criticize prevails over the offense of reputational damage because, in addition to referring to specific, factually true facts, "the expressions were closely related to the expression of dissent and the protection of the interests and values deemed compromised. Furthermore, they were part of a context of marked conflict, relating to matters of undoubted public interest, which permitted the use of even harsh and denigrating expressions, provided they were kept within the bounds of restraint."

Furthermore, when Pili spoke of "threats to mayors," as established by the Court of Cassation, the expression "does not appear to be intended to attribute to the injured party any specific criminal conduct, but rather constituted the manifestation, in deliberately strong terms, of a severe critical assessment of the communication sent by "Abbanoa Spa" to the mayors of Sardinia, considered by the defendant to be capable of exerting undue pressure on municipal administrations."

The ruling recognizes that Pili's comments about Ramazzotti, "although clearly derogatory, are nevertheless exempt from the right to criticize, as they stem from a core of truth and information of interest to the public and do not lapse into expressive forms that exceed the limits of restraint."

Enrico Fresu

© Riproduzione riservata