The dissemination of a false news story on social media, in a chat or on a website is not automatically a crime called “fake news”. What matters is what is stated, who receives it, and what effect it can produce. An unfounded rumor about a danger can involve public order or cause a false alarm; a false accusation directed at a person can instead damage their reputation and raise a defamation issue.
I want to help you distinguish these situations without confusing imprudent sharing with criminally relevant conduct, nor underestimating a post that seems like a mere comment. We will see which elements separate news, opinion, and personal accusation; why the medium used changes the assessment; and what concrete steps to consider if you have published, forwarded, or suffered the dissemination of false content.
Fake news is not an autonomous crime
There is no general provision in the criminal code called “fake news”. The expression refers to very different contents: inaccurate data, a partial reconstruction, a misleading headline, a fabricated alert, or an accusation directed at an identifiable person. Criminal liability arises only if the specific factual event falls within the elements provided for by a specific rule.
This distinction also protects the freedom of expression. Harsh opinion, incorrect prediction, or political criticism do not become a crime simply because someone considers them unfounded. It is different to present a false circumstance as an ascertained fact, especially when the message is capable of creating collective danger or damaging the reputation of others.
News and comment do not coincide. News reports a verifiable fact, such as the existence of an emergency, a measure, or behavior attributed to someone. Comment instead expresses an evaluation. The Constitutional Court has clarified that, for the purposes of Article 656 of the criminal code, biased news concerns an altered representation of reality and not the simple expression of interpretations or opinions on true facts: Constitutional Court ruling no. 19 of 1962.
False news and potential disturbance of public order
Article 656 of the criminal code concerns the dissemination of false, exaggerated, or biased news capable of disturbing public order. It is therefore not enough to prove that a phrase is inaccurate. It is necessary to link the content to a danger to collective peace and security, assessed in the context in which the news was disseminated.
A publication that baselessly announces a serious imminent event, indicates a place as dangerous, or attributes a non-existent decision to an authority may have a different scope from an inaccurate post on a topic without collective repercussions. The tenor of the message, the audience reached, the apparent credibility of the source, the timing of the dissemination, and the concrete capacity of the news to generate disorder or widespread reactions are relevant.
The audience of the message is not a detail. Content published on an open profile, reposted in large groups, or accompanied by apparently official indications has a different circulation capacity than a limited private conversation. This does not eliminate the need to prove all the requirements of the rule, but it explains why the same text can assume a different legal meaning depending on how it is communicated.
The regulatory reference remains the Criminal Code, with Articles 595, 656 and 658. Since these are different offenses, it is incorrect to qualify every piece of false information as a false alarm or as criminally relevant dissemination of false news.
Causing a false alarm requires a false emergency directed at those who can intervene
Causing a false alarm has a more precise object than a generic false rumor. Article 658 of the criminal code concerns the announcement of non-existent disasters, accidents, or dangers that arouses a false alarm among the authorities or those performing a public service. The central point is the alert about a non-existent emergency, not merely the online presence of erroneous information.
Publicly stating that there is a bomb in a building, that a serious accident has occurred, or that an immediate danger exists, inducing the recipient of the message to activate rescue or checks, is different from publishing an unfounded opinion on a current topic. The false emergency and the recipient of the alert are the decisive facts. A private message can assume relevance if it is used to alert those who must intervene; conversely, a post visible to many does not automatically constitute this misdemeanor if the content of the alarm provided by law is missing.
It is advisable to avoid an impulsive reaction even when the message originates as a joke, satire, or a forward received from others. The context can help understand the actual meaning of the communication, but it is not enough to label it as ironic if the text, images, and sending methods present it as a real and urgent report.
When a false news story can become defamation
Defamation protects the reputation of a person absent from the communication. Article 595 of the criminal code requires an offense to reputation communicated to multiple persons. The content does not necessarily have to state the person's name: it may be sufficient that the recipients of the message are able to identify them with reasonable clarity through their role, images, context, or other references.
Attributing a crime, dishonest behavior, serious professional misconduct, or morally reprehensible conduct to someone can damage their reputation if the accusation is presented as true without adequate foundation. Falsity is not the only element to be assessed. The offensive character of the charge, the number of recipients, the recognizability of the person, and the overall meaning of the message also count.
A post or comment on a bulletin board accessible to an indeterminate public may fall under the aggravated hypothesis of the means of publicity. The Court of Cassation traced the dissemination of defamatory expressions via a Facebook wall back to the third paragraph of Article 595, precisely because of the potential reach of an indeterminate or appreciable number of people: Court of Cassation review on the illicit use of social media.
A private chat is not automatically equivalent to a public post. Even a communication sent to multiple people can assume relevance for defamation, but the concrete diffusiveness of the medium remains important to establish whether the aggravating circumstance of publicity applies. Sending to individual reserved email boxes, for example, does not coincide for that reason alone with a publication capable of reaching an indeterminate public.
Judicial reporting requires precision
Reporting judicial proceedings does not authorize changing essential facts. Writing that a person is formally charged when they are only under investigation, or describing a fact different from the one subject to the proceedings, can affect reputation. The Joint Civil Sections of the Cassation have recalled this limit with reference to the right of judicial reporting: ruling no. 13200 of 2025.
The truth of a fact, when demonstrable, is therefore an important circumstance; however, it is not useful to isolate a phrase from its context. A communication can also be damaging because it omits decisive information, presents a suspicion as certainty, or uses disproportionate words compared to the reported fact. Criticism, on the other hand, can even be harsh, but must remain recognizable as an evaluation and rest on an adequate factual basis.
Publishing, sharing, and deleting: what changes
Sharing content belonging to others does not render the behavior of the person forwarding it irrelevant. Resharing can broaden the audience and contribute to the circulation of the accusation or alarm. However, it is not correct to presume automatic responsibility: it is necessary to verify which content you reposted, whether you added comments, who you sent it to, and whether the message already had a recognizable offensive or alarming meaning.
Deleting the post can limit further dissemination, but it does not single-handedly erase what has already been communicated. The original text, the moment of publication, its circulation, any screenshots, and the responses received may remain relevant. Eliminating content must not turn into a disorderly modification of evidence: if the affair may have consequences, it is useful to preserve essential data in their original form.
For those who suffer the publication, the response does not necessarily coincide with criminal proceedings. A request for removal or rectification, civil protection for damages, and, if the prerequisites are met, a criminal complaint may come into play. Criminal and civil law follow different logics. Content may not constitute a crime but remain damaging on a civil level; likewise, rectification may be appropriate without constituting an automatic admission of liability.
Which elements are useful to establish immediately
The complete version of the content is worth more than a phrase taken out of context. If the problem concerns a post, a story, a comment, a video, or a chat, it is important not to limit oneself to copying the offensive text. The URL or profile identifier, visible date and time, images, any prior and subsequent comments, the number and identity of recipients when knowable, and the way in which the person indicated in the message is recognizable are also needed.
For alarm news, the recipient of the report, the words used to describe the danger, the existence or non-existence of the event, and the possible activation of authorities or services become central. For defamation, on the other hand, it is necessary to distinguish the fact attributed to the person from critical evaluation and verify whether the message was communicated to multiple subjects.
Not fueling circulation is often the first prudent choice. Responding publicly by repeating the accusation, forwarding screenshots in many chats, or opening alternative profiles can aggravate dissemination. If you have received a contestation or believe you have been harmed, I can help you reconstruct the content and identify the relevant protection, without automatically overlapping caused false alarm, defamation, and simple inaccuracies.
Frequently asked questions
Can sharing fake news without writing anything be a crime?
It can have relevance, but it is not automatic. Sharing is a new dissemination of the content and can increase the audience reached. To speak of criminal liability, however, it is necessary to verify the specific applicable rule: false emergency and alarm, possible disturbance of public order, or offense to the reputation of a recognizable person.
Can I delete the post after discovering it was false?
Yes, removal can stop further shares. However, it does not necessarily eliminate the effects of the publication that already occurred nor the elements that may have been preserved by others. Before modifying relevant messages or conversations, it is prudent to keep a complete copy of the content and its context.
Is harsh criticism on social media always defamation?
No, criticism does not in itself coincide with a criminally relevant offense. It matters whether the message falsely attributes damaging facts, uses gratuitously derogatory expressions, and is communicated to multiple people. The severity of the assessment is not enough on its own; context, factual basis, and language employed are also relevant.
Can a message sent in a private chat constitute defamation?
It can happen if the offense to reputation is communicated to multiple people. However, a restricted chat and a public post do not have the same diffusiveness. The number of participants, the possibility of forwarding, the content of the message, and the recognizability of the indicated person affect both the configurability of the offense and the possible aggravating circumstance of the means of publicity.
Within what timeframe can I file a criminal complaint for defamation?
For offenses prosecutable upon complaint, the general term is three months from the knowledge of the fact constituting the crime. The complaint must express the will to proceed criminally, not a simple request for clarifications. The Ministry of Justice summarizes the function and general term of the complaint on the page regarding denunciation, statement, and complaint. The concrete starting point requires attention, especially for content published online and discovered at a later time.
Orienting oneself before acting
The useful question is not whether a piece of news is simply “fake”, but what concrete harm it produced or could produce. A false alarm, content capable of disturbing public order, and an accusation that damages a person follow different prerequisites. If the publication concerns you directly, you can contact me to frame the content, the available documents, and the alternatives to consider.