The millionaire lawsuit against Fatto Daily reopens the issue of reckless complaints and freedom of the press that must always be defended
Solidarity with the Daily Fact. The newspaper directed by Marco Travaglio was sued, before the courts of Rome and New York, by Giuseppe Cipriani and Nicole Minetti, for the campaign conducted against the pardon of the former dental hygienist. The couple’s lawyers are demanding compensation worth hundreds of millions, claiming that in addition to their image, their business activities would have been damaged.
I have been a director for thirty years and therefore I have seen many complaints: let’s say that I consider them a side effect of the profession. Unfortunately, those like me who run a newspaper are held accountable both criminally and civilly even for articles they did not write. He is accused of failing to check: before publishing he should have verified every single piece of news, even though this is practically impossible. And, after having edited four newspapers and a weekly, I can say that I have seen it all, not only reckless complaints, but also condemnations without logic. Like the time that – despite having published true news, i.e. the investigation against a magistrate – I and the colleague who had written the article were convicted for not having reported that, in the meantime, the accusation had been dismissed. It’s a shame that the archiving took place while the report was going to press. Result: tens of thousands of euros in compensation.
The case against Il Fatto Daily, however, is more insidious. The document presented by the couple’s lawyers, in fact, does not limit itself to contesting the defamation, but makes a request for damages. And it does not do so in an Italian court where, although the compensation is heavy, it still falls within certain parameters, but before the New York district court. Having to defend yourself overseas already requires a heavy outlay, because American law firms certainly do not apply the tables of the Italian Bar Association but, generally, they are based on the value of the case. Furthermore, it is true that US judges are sensitive to freedom of the press but, at times, the sentences for news deemed defamatory have been very harsh. Apart from the 1.4 billion dollar compensation to which the right-wing commentator Alex Jones was sentenced for claiming that the Sandy Hook massacre was staged, Fox News had to pay 787 million dollars to a company accused of having rigged the 2020 election results and the same had to be done by Newsmax, another conservative network, which was condemned to pay 67 million dollars.
Of course, in the case of Fatto Daily it remains to be seen whether the New York court will deem itself competent to evaluate the dispute. Cipriani turned to the American judges not only because he is a resident of the United States but, above all, because his company, the one that would have been damaged by the articles in Travaglio’s newspaper, is based in the USA. Is this enough to demand compensation of 250 million dollars from a newspaper published in Italy? We will see it soon, also because the cases in those latitudes do not have the speed of justice at home. Having said that, a sentence to repay even a sum much lower than that requested would risk undermining the very solidity of the newspaper and, therefore, many have expressed solidarity with the Fact. Regardless of how you feel about the pardon of Nicole Minetti, freedom of the press must be defended.
However, allow me to add that it must always be defended and not with alternating current. That is, the right to information cannot be invoked only when it is convenient for a party. As I wrote, in thirty years I have received several quotes, some incredible, such as those presented by NGOs that were not even mentioned in the complained article, but no one has invoked freedom of the press. And where were the beautiful souls when, years ago, the CGIL unleashed hundreds of lawsuits signed by individual trade unionists against the newspaper I was then managing for having broken the news that its officials were allowed to do what workers were prevented from doing, that is, raising their pensions? After a few years there were those who complained after discovering that the confederal leaders enjoyed allowances of many thousands of euros per month. It’s a shame that those same people, faced with the aggression directed at us for having recounted the facts that then gave rise to that social security treatment, had turned the other way.
Here, since I am well aware of how much freedom of the press costs, all my solidarity goes to Travaglio and the Daily Fact. Because the journalists facing a millionaire compensation request are not free but threatened. And it applies to everyone.
