|
 ike
the American Constitution, the Italian Constitution guarantees freedom
of the press: "Everyone has the right to
freely express
his own thought with words, writings and other means. The press
cannot be subject to permits or censorship" (Art.
21, Italian Constitution). But at the behest of the Italian
media, Italy's Parliament has just dealt a severe blow to free speech
in Italy, notwithstanding the plain language of the Italian Constitution.
Italian law
states that if one wishes to publish any kind of magazine, review,
or whatever else, one must be member (or find an editor who is a
member) of the Association of Journalists.
Although this
seems like the kind of law that might have been enacted by Mussolini,
it actually dates from the post-war years. But once the Internet
swept through Italy, ordinary citizens began to build websites,
forums, newsgroups, webzines, and many other means to provide news
to the public. The professional journalists' monopoly was in deep
trouble. So the Parliament, just a few weeks before the elections,
has passed a new
law requiring that websites akin to the press (i.e., websites
that publish news) follow the same rules at the printed press. Every
"non-periodical" website must publish the name and address
of its "editor" and the name and address of the server;
and every "periodical" website must be registered in the
local tribunal and have an editor who is member of the Association
of Journalists.
The new law
has several consequences. First, professional journalists protect
their illegitimate monopoly by reducing Internet competition. Second,
people who have politically incorrect ideas will find it more difficult
to express them. Third, Italian website providers will now face
additional costs that their international competitors won't. Under
this law, freedom of expression is a "dead right walking."
While ordinary Italians, it might be hoped, can no longer express
their thoughts in Italy, the Internet still gives them the opportunity
to publish their writings on foreign servers. But the new law defines
as "Italian" any website the contents of which "are
made in Italy" or "are transmitted" to Italy.
According to
Mr. Paolo Serventi Longhi, Secretary of the Italian
Journalists Union, "The absurd anarchy has finished, at
least in Italy, which permits everyone to publish news online without
any rule or control, and citizens' right to have some information
standards respected is granted."
Not all Italian
journalists, however, are so contemptuous of free-speech rights.
Paolo de Andreis, a journalist with the Italian webzine Punto
Informatico, strongly opposes the new law, calling it "Orwell-style
censorship." This is why Punto Informatico has promoted
a petition
in order to ask the new Parliament (to be elected on May 13th) immediately
to repeal the statute.
Today, many
Italian websites are legal outlaws and could be criminally prosecuted.
Of course, this law will not be enforced against all of them —
only those which endorse ideas unsafe for the good of the government.
The law requiring a permit to produce news was passed with support
of both the leftists and rightists in the Parliament — as parties
put aside their ideological differences to find common ground in
empowering the government to punish and extinguish dissent.
A side-note:
To an American audience, it might seem incredible that the establishment
media in Italy could work so hard to suppress freedom of speech,
to bolster its own influence by suppressing other voices. Yet this
is precisely what the American media are doing with their intense
and often biased promotion of the McCain-Feingold bill. As passed
by the Senate, McCain-Feingold makes it vastly more difficult for
groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union, the National
Rifle Association, and others to buy advertisements criticizing
or applauding members of Congress; the McCain-Feingold speech-blackout
periods for free speech go into effect 60 days before a general
election, and 30 days before a primary. In both the Old World and
the New, citizens who care about freedom of the press must defend
it themselves, for many elements of the professional press seem
eager to suppress other voices.
|
