Online Defamation: Analysis of Judgment No. 25037 of 2023

The recent Judgment No. 25037 of March 17, 2023, addressed a highly relevant issue in the contemporary legal context: defamation via the internet. With the evolution of digital communication, offenses against honor have taken on new forms, and the Court has provided valuable guidance on how to identify the author of a defamatory post, even in the absence of direct digital evidence.

The Context of the Judgment

In this case, the defendant, G. M., was accused of defamation for certain statements published online. The Court of Appeal of Sassari, in a decision dated December 15, 2021, had already analyzed the issue, but the Supreme Court's judgment further clarified the criteria to be followed in attributing responsibility to an author based on circumstantial evidence. The Court emphasized that, even without technical investigations, it is possible to trace the author of a defamatory post by evaluating various elements.

The Criteria for Identifying the Author

The ruling states:

Defamation via the internet - Identification of the author - Criteria - Indication. In the matter of defamation via "internet," even in the absence of technical investigations on the origin of the "posts," it is possible to attribute the defamatory fact to its author based on circumstantial evidence, in light of the convergence, plurality, and precision of data such as: the motive; the subject matter addressed in the published statements or the offensive tone of the content; the relationship between the parties; the origin of the messages from the defendant's virtual board, using the same "nickname"; the absence of a report of "identity theft" from the holder of the "profile" on which the incriminating "posts" were published.

These criteria indicate that defamation is not solely a matter of tangible evidence but can be established through inferences and circumstances. Among the key factors to consider are:

  • The motive of the author, which can provide important clues about their intention.
  • The content of the post, which must be assessed for its offensive tone.
  • The relationship between the parties involved, which can influence the dynamics of the defamation.
  • The origin of the messages from the defendant's account and the use of their nickname.
  • The absence of a report of identity theft, which could indicate the truthfulness of the attribution.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 25037 of 2023 represents an important step in Italian jurisprudence regarding online defamation. It demonstrates how the legal system is adapting to the new realities of the web, recognizing the validity of circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct evidence. This approach could serve as a deterrent for those who use digital platforms to harm others' reputations, emphasizing that responsibilities are no less severe even in the virtual context. Awareness of the norms and legal consequences is essential for all internet users.

Bianucci Law Firm