Where is the dividing line between the need of prosecutors to prevent crime, the freedom of the press to inform the public about instances of human misconduct and the right of people to protect their reputations until the end of a trial?
In Britain, the recent case of Professor Orlando Figes – who was accused of anonymously rubbishing his rivals’ books on Amazon and threatened legal action, but later admitted posting the critical comments – raised some doubts about the laws of libel and the need for debate about reforming them. However, Silvio Berlusconi’s Italy is following a quite different path. A draft bill has been proposed by the government to reshape police investigations and freedom of speech. One object of it is to limit the use of wiretaps. Initially, the legislation aimed to ban the media from publishing phone tap transcripts until suspects were sent to trial. Critics argued that would limit the scope of the press to report on investigations, particularly as the Italian justice system tends to move very slowly.
The government subsequently backtracked, following sustained pressure from newspapers, opposition politicians and even members of the Italian Prime Minister’s own party. The publication of transcripts will now be allowed when considered relevant by investigating magistrates.
Telephone tapping will be authorised – by a special board of magistrates and for a restricted period of time – only if there is a clear evidence of crime. Special permission will be needed to tap the calls of members of the clergy and lawmakers. This may appear paradoxical, as wiretapping tends to be used when there is already a suspect, to prevent imminent criminal activity or to prove that a crime has been committed. Further, if authorisation is requested from, say, a bishop with reference to one of his priests, it is possible that the suspect cleric may become aware he is under surveillance and destroy evidence of a possible crime.
During a recent visit to Rome, an anxious-looking Lanny Breuer, the assistant attorney general for the criminal division of the Department of Justice in the United States, suggested that listening devices and audio surveillance are “extremely useful”, that Italy has made some incredible achievements in prosecuting crime, that “together we can do more”.
However, while the proposed law does not seem to worry some commentators, anti-Mafia lawyers and judges say it will make it harder to combat the activities of criminal organisations.
While there are ongoing protests and demonstrations organised by a few political parties and groups of concerned citizens, the Italian press and broadcasting are in particular turmoil. Media tycoon Berlusconi has previously said that freedom of speech in Italy is excessive – a statement that not enough people realised was a clear message designed to lay the ground for the current legislative developments.
Under the new law, journalists can be jailed and editors fined thousand of euros. Rupert Murduch’s Sky Italia satellite network is threatening legal action at the European Court in Strasbourg and others might follow this lead. Many have reacted with horror to what Berlusconi is trying to do. They say freedom of speech and the capacity of law enforcement officers to their jobs should no be diluted or impaired in any way.
Berlusconi’s opponents say the Prime Minister’s intention is to prevent damaging stories about him being published or broadcast and curb criticism of his increasingly unpopular government. There would be no more reporting of his sexual peccadilloes and alleged links with prostitutes. Something like the Patrizia D’Addario case would not be in the public domain. She is the escort who claimed she was among women paid to attend Berlusconi’s private parties and that she had pictures showing her with him in his bedroom. She also claimed to have secretly recorded video footage of her encounters in the Prime Minister’s Rome residence.
What Berlusconi wants is for filming and audio recording to be impossible without the appropriate authorisation. The penalty for disregarding this would be a four-year prison sentence. Even some of Berlusconi supporters think this going too far.
No one will make public Berlusconi’s discussions with the directors of state television about sidelining and restraining their journalists. TG1, the flagship news programme of public broadcaster RAI, is already implementing a policy of self-censorship by avoiding negative news about Berlusconi’s governing coalition. For example, it did not report Elio Germano’s comments when he won the award for best actor at the Cannes Film Festival. Germano: “I dedicate this film to Italy and the Italians, who are doing all in their power to make the country a better place than under its current leaders.”
Berlusconi’s latest antics do not merely fly in the face of common sense and good practice. With the efforts to restrict media freedom and frustrate the work of magistrates, the political elite has a clear goal in its sights. It wants to place Berlusconi and the whole political class above the law.
This is an attack on the principles of freedom and human rights. It is almost as if the plan is to re-feudalise Italy. Berlusconi seems to want a country where not all individuals are regarded equal, but one where politicians can act with impunity and effectively outside the law. They should not be challenged by the judiciary, nor publicly “humiliated” by the press.
Berlusconi would have us believe that all the allegations against him are false and variously cooked up by the hostile domestic media, international press, Rupert Murdoch’s rival enterprises, his political opponents, the left in general and communist judges in particular. Another view is that they can’t all be wrong, which is why Silvio Berlusconi doesn’t want anyone eavesdropping on his telephone calls.
Andrea Mammone is a historian at Kingston University, London. He is the co-editor, with GA Veltri, of Italy Today: The Sick Man of Europe, published by Routledge
