From the democratic license of the “more books, more free” fair to the controversy over who can participate in an event that (in reality) is only commercial. There are too many Pavlovian reactions out there and too little judgement…
We live in times that from a cerebral point of view could be defined as Pavlovian: we express ourselves upon instigation through immediate reactions, willingly doing without resorting to the hindrance of reflection, the important thing is to do it quickly.
An example: the prime minister states that asking the participants of the Roman book fair More books, more free certification of anti-fascism is a form of censorship. The Pavlovian dogs react as expected, some call her reckless for wanting to clear fascism, others call her a fascist for those who want to attribute anti-fascism credentials. The Minister of Justice also enters the fray, stating that the Criminal Code currently in force in Italy was signed by Mussolini. Thanks for reminding me, but if the Code were also considered a book, would it have anything to do with those the fair deals with?
Let’s at least try to set up a reasoning, for those who still believe that it is not a waste of time, the others can also not follow me and go back to messing around with their smartphone.
Let’s start from the definition of censorship as per the dictionary: «Form of supervision exercised by an authority over what is intended for public enjoyment, with the possibility of taking preventive action in this regard». In the specific case of Più libri liberi, I imagine that the authority is to be understood not as the sovereign institutions to which censorship traditionally refers, but the organization and scientific direction of the event. It will be good to remember that in 2025 the same fair, then directed by Chiara Valerio, a figure almost unanimously considered very representative of a certain way of understanding national intellectuality, had granted the presence of a publisher, Passage to the Bosco, which publishes texts linked to recent reactionary thought, including neo-fascist thought (historical fascism, as those who study or have studied decently know, died in 1945). Hence the pronouncement of numerous writers and publishers who asked for the expulsion of Passage to the Bosco from the fair, given that it transgressed the anti-fascist values on which our Republic is founded.
Valerio, who already the year before, as a fervent feminist, had had to justify the presence of a man convicted of mistreatment of a woman, Leonardo Caffo, countered by stating that she shared nothing of Passage to the Bosco, but that we shouldn’t be afraid of the ideas he spreads, given that they wouldn’t even violate the law.
Passage to the Bosco was however contested during the event, ending up catalysing much of the interest that in previous editions had been reserved for other publishers.
If in 2026 Più Libri Liberi wants to change direction with respect to the “Valerio line”, ultimately consistent with the Voltarian principle of tolerance which also inspired the title of the event, it is because it is still a commercial fair, it would not exist if display boxes and books were not sold inside. In order not to run the risk of losing publishers and writers of the type who rebelled against the presence of Paesaggio al Bosco, it was therefore decided to devise for this year the expedient of self-certification of anti-fascism. Via Valerio, in her place others including Paolo Di Paolo, whose patience and conversational skills I remember with pleasure when he interviewed me at the last Turin Book Fair. That Di Paolo, however, who was contested, in particular through an unsigned text in the Corriere della Sera, for the position he took as co-responsible of Salerno Letteratura, on the one hand defending the right of the writer Erri De Luca to declare himself a Zionist and in favor of Israeli military activism, on the other disqualifying him from the inaugural speech because his positions could be confused with those of the organizers, to which De Luca preferred to decline the invitation.
They may be good writers, but when the role demands that they be politicians they flounder big time.
But let’s get back to the point: is that of Più libripiù libero censorship? In short, was vigilance taken as a preventive measure? Literally yes, just as it would have been censorious, given that a certain side is complaining about the ban on Russia’s presence at the Venice Biennale. But it can be seen in another way, also to clarify ideas once and for all: the question of freedom of opinion is no longer as the candid Voltaire abstractly conceived it, if it is true that one of the most urgent problems of Western democracies has become that of having granted maximum right of political expression even to those who preach their dismemberment. Making sure that the freedom of opinions at home does not exceed certain limits can then protect against the possible damage that can arise from taking them too seriously.
There will be less freedom overall, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a bad thing if certain attitudes prove to be more profitable in their consequences than their opposite. We could then solve the problem of More books, more free by considering it by statute not a simple fair for small and medium publishing, but an openly anti-fascist one, perhaps calling it with a more honest, conscious “Fewer books, less free” from a certain point of view.
As for what the Minister of Justice declared, if it is not left forgotten it is because it allows us to clarify another aspect on which a careless contrast between fascism and anti-fascism would only produce mental reductionism.
There is no scandal about the fact that part of the founding structure of the republican state derives from the fascist one. It is true, the Penal Code currently in force is largely that of the fascist Rocco, but modified in such a way as to make it compatible first of all with the Republican Constitution, the law of laws, then with all the others which have introduced rights not previously permitted (divorce, crime against the person instead of morality, disavowal of honor crimes, abortion, for example). There is probably still too much fascism in the Rocco Code, his justicialist vision should be undermined at the root more than has yet been done. But the continuity between fascism and the Republic can also be seen elsewhere. The cardinal laws on which the protection of cultural heritage is based were desired in 1939 by a fascist, Giuseppe Bottai, referring to the same centralizing and illiberal State that Rocco looked to. Ask a modern-day progressive, whether real or self-styled, if he intends to renounce them in the name of anti-fascism: he will tell you that these are enlightened laws to be defended at all costs. Amen.
