The criminal proceeding born from the libel suit brought against the attack by the professor of the University of Foggia Carmela Robustella, of which the attack wrote at the end of 2017 because of the disputes that arose in the Department of Economics after the sipontine (designated by the rector Maurizio Ricci in the board of directors) won the IUS / 05 competition.
By order of January 8, 2020, the judge for the preliminary investigations of the Court of Foggia lifted the reservation made at the hearing on October 28, 2019, in which there was discussion on the opposition to the request for dismissal proposed by prof. Robustella.
In this hearing, Avv. Michele Vaira, defender of the Attack, supported the discriminator of the exercise of the right of news and criticism.
Mr. Michele Vaira said: “The judge’s provision emphasizes, as highlighted by this defense during the discussion, the need to balance the opposing interests of the right to the reputation of the offended person and the right (but I would add duty) to the news and of criticism.
In the specific case, the balance was simple: the reconstruction of the facts was faithful; the reasons of both the “parties” were reported (recurrent teachers and Prof. Robustella); the language was extremely respectful, and therefore continent. The only term slightly over the top, that is “magic circle”, was correctly defined by the Judge as a harmless term, since it is a common journalistic phrase used to describe a group of people in whom the top person (in this case the Magnificent Rector) places particular trust.
It is necessary to underline that in no part of the article discussed was there ever been any doubt about the academic qualities of Prof.ssa Robustella.
In every trial of this kind I take the opportunity to raise awareness among the judges about the (indeed worrying) state of press freedom in our country.
Italy is penultimate in Western Europe, only thanks to Turkey.
I often read, too often, of the indictments (this was not the case) that have more the appearance of the injured majesty than of the actual defamation.
Fortunately, the jurisprudence of legitimacy has authoritatively specified that, already from an objective point of view,
It should also be remembered, for the benefit of those who show impatience with the press, that anyone who plays a public role, in particular elected offices, or anyone who is paid with public money or for whatever reason you administer it, is subject to more penetrating control by of public information. “
