Online Defamation: Analysis of Judgment No. 25037 of 2023

The recent Judgment No. 25037 of March 17, 2023, addressed a topic of great relevance in the contemporary legal context: defamation via the internet. With the evolution of digital communication, crimes 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.

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 of December 15, 2021, had already analyzed the issue, but the Supreme Court's judgment further clarified the criteria to be followed to attribute responsibility to an author on an evidentiary basis. The Court emphasized that, even without technical investigations, it is possible to trace the author of a defamatory post by evaluating various elements.

Criteria for Identifying the Author

The headnote of the judgment reads:

Defamation via the internet - Identification of the author - Criteria - Indication. In the matter of defamation via "internet," even in the absence of digital investigations into the origin of "posts," it is possible to attribute the defamatory act to its author on an evidentiary basis, given the convergence, plurality, and precision of data such as: the motive; the subject matter of the published statements or the offensive nature of the content; the relationship between the parties; the origin of the messages from the defendant's virtual bulletin board, using their "nickname"; the absence of an "identity theft" report by the owner 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 ascertained through circumstantial evidence and circumstances. Among the key factors to consider are:

• The author's motive, which can provide important clues to their intent.
• The content of the post, which must be evaluated for its offensive nature.
• 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 an identity theft report, which could indicate the veracity of the attribution.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 25037 of 2023 represents an important step in Italian jurisprudence concerning 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 damage the reputation of others, emphasizing that responsibilities are no less severe even in the virtual context. Awareness of the rules and legal consequences is fundamental for all internet users.