Global Freedom of Expression

Public Prosecutor v. Giacalone

Closed Contracts Expression

Key Details

  • Mode of Expression
    Electronic / Internet-based Communication
  • Date of Decision
    May 10, 2017
  • Outcome
    Decision - Procedural Outcome, Reversed Lower Court
  • Case Number
  • Region & Country
    Italy, Europe and Central Asia
  • Judicial Body
    Supreme (court of final appeal)
  • Type of Law
    Criminal Law
  • Themes
    Defamation / Reputation

Content Attribution Policy

Global Freedom of Expression is an academic initiative and therefore, we encourage you to share and republish excerpts of our content so long as they are not used for commercial purposes and you respect the following policy:

  • Attribute Columbia Global Freedom of Expression as the source.
  • Link to the original URL of the specific case analysis, publication, update, blog or landing page of the down loadable content you are referencing.

Attribution, copyright, and license information for media used by Global Freedom of Expression is available on our Credits page.

Case Analysis

Case Summary and Outcome

The Italian Supreme Court upheld a public prosecutor’s appeal against a first instance decision acquitting a journalist of criminal defamation in respect of an article reporting the death of one of the senior members of Cosa Nostra as having rid Sicily of “a great piece of shit”.  The Court reasoned that general criticisms of an Italian criminal organization cannot justify the violation of an individual’s human dignity which is protected under Article 2 of the Italian Constitution. In other words, in balancing the conflicting interests at stake, namely freedom of expression and human dignity, the Court considered that  human dignity prevailed.


Ms Rosa Pace, widow of Mr Mariano Agate, a senior member of Cosa Nostra sued journalist Rino Giacalone for defamation over an article published after the death her husband in 2013. In the report Giacalone recalled Agate’s criminal past and stated that his death had freed Sicily of “a great piece of shit”. The widow and her sons claimed that the statement violated the deceased’s right to human dignity.

The Court of Trapani acquitted the journalist finding that the right to criticize covered the defamatory statement and did not constitute a violation of human dignity. Indeed, the Court said,  that the journalist used such an expression specifically to encourage readers to think about the value system of the Cosa Nostra’s value system.

The public prosecutor of the Court of Trapani appealed the decision directly to the Italian Supreme Court alleging that the court of Trapani had misapplied the criminal law.

Decision Overview

The Italian Supreme Court upheld the appeal on the following basis.

Firstly, it said that the right to criticize extends to expression so long as it neither excessive nor unjustified in seeking to convey its message. Therefore, statements that are strong, controversial or hyperbolic will escape liability provided that they are proportionate and used to express a personal opinion. In particular, expression that is used to criticize should not consist of a gratuitous and unjustified attack on another’s reputation. According to both domestic law and the European Court of Human Rights, in balancing the fundamental rights of free speech and the protection of a person’s dignity, it is necessary to consider the purpose behind the statement, namely whether it had a sufficiently close connection to facts or was constituted a gratuitous personal attack.

The Court said that this assessment was linked to the purpose of the communication and to the specific context in which the expression is used but that it was also necessary to take into account its content. Justified criticisms need to respect a human dignity as provided by article 2 of the Italian Constitution: some expression is objectively offensive and, therefore, unacceptable in any context, except in cases in which such expression is justified in the context of a joke. Expressions which “dehumanize” the victim are objectively detrimental to reputation, such as those which compare humans to things, animals or concepts commonly considered repugnant, obscene, or disgusting like excrement.

The Supreme Court said that everyone had the the right to human dignity and that the general purpose pursued by the journalist could not justify the violation of a fundamental interest of the individual in question even if  such individual was the author of brutal crimes.

Moreover, the Italian Supreme Court considered it irrelevant that the reference to excrement when describing Cosa Nostra had its genesis in a famous statement of a well-known Italian victim murdered by the Mafia, who had used it to emphasize the organization’s ability to undermine the basis of civil society. The Court said that this argument did not go to the issue in the case because in using the quote to refer to just one individual of the criminal organization the journalist changed  its whole meaning. As a result, the statement violated the essence of human dignity. The Italian Supreme Court also pointed out that one of  the aims of Italy’s legal system is to re-educate criminals as provided by article 27, paragraph 3 of the Italian Constitution, even those who belong to a bloody criminal organization,

For these reasons, the Court annulled the decision of the Court of Trapani and referred the case to the Court of Appeal of Palermo.

Decision Direction

Quick Info

Decision Direction indicates whether the decision expands or contracts expression based on an analysis of the case.

Contracts Expression

The decision of the Italian Supreme Court contracts freedom of expression because it imposes limits on the right to criticize in order to protect human dignity. However, the decision should be read in the context of the European Court of Human Rights’ jurisprudence on the protection of fundamental rights which is based on balancing conflicting interests on a case-by-case basis.

Global Perspective

Quick Info

Global Perspective demonstrates how the court’s decision was influenced by standards from one or many regions.

Table of Authorities

Related International and/or regional laws

  • ECtHR, Peruzzi v. Italy, App. No. 39294/09 (2015)

National standards, law or jurisprudence

  • It., Constitution of Italy (1947), art. 2.
  • It., The case of Surano, Italian Supreme Court of Cassation, Judgement No. 36045/2014
  • It., The case of Foti, Italian Supreme Court of Cassation, Judgement No. 19070/2015

Case Significance

Quick Info

Case significance refers to how influential the case is and how its significance changes over time.

The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.

Official Case Documents

Have comments?

Let us know if you notice errors or if the case analysis needs revision.

Send Feedback