World Cup time! Hurray! An entire month of football! Rejoice as the pubs stay open late for weirdly timed matches! Gasp at your workmates’ expertise on Iran’s deployment of a false 9! Repeatedly smash yourself in the face with your iPad as you read yet another article by a broadsheet columnist complaining that people don’t pay as much attention to literary fiction as they do to sport!
While the competition officially kicks off tonight, the Brazilians, or, specifically, the archdiocese of Rio have dived in with an early tackle, reportedly threatening to sue Italian broadcaster RAI for an advert showing Rio’s famous Christ The Redeemer statue wearing the Jersey of Italy’s Azzurri.
Suing for what, exactly, is not clear. The church’s lawyer, Rodrigo Grazioli, has been quoted as saying “The Archdiocese is deeply offended. It’s as if Brazilian TV were to make a commercial in which mulatto girls engaged in lewd behaviour with the gladiators of the Colosseum.”
Leaving aside the bizarrely specific and racist mention of “mulatto girls”, and the fact that people involved with churches have to make absolutely everything, ever, about “lewd behaviour”, it’s still not clear what the exact complaint is. Is it the suggestion that the colossal statue might support Italy? That Jesus himself might support Italy? Is this about putting any jersey at all on Jesus, or specifically an Italian one? Is there something specifically blasphemous about suggesting that the Son of God is a catenaccio man?
Or is it something rather more prosaic, such as, say, the church claiming to hold copyright over the image of the statue?
If it is that, as the original O Globo newspaper report suggests, then Grazioli and his clients are being more than a little disingenuous in their outrage. If the issue is simply an objection to commercial usage of the image, than that’s what the complaint should be about.
So why the offended line? Why the suggestion of an insult to religion? Because, put simply, it works. Who wants to be offensive?
In Ireland this week, national broadcaster RTE refused to show a sketch as part of the Savage Eye sketch show. The sketch, now leaked on the web features a group of “wild nuns” ogling a muscular Jesus, in a spoof of Diet Coke ads of old. Comic David McSavage, the man responsible for the skit, has said the broadcaster is afraid of Ireland’s blasphemy laws; RTE says its own guidelines will not allow for “undue offence”.
I’m not even sure that, even if one was a supporter of laws against blasphemy, images of hunky Jesus, or Azzurri Jesus would necessarily count as blasphemous, at least not for Catholics.
On a panel on religious art a few years ago, I found myself simultaneously playing the role of token secularist and token Roman Catholic. The other panelists – art critics and Anglicans – were quite keen on abstraction in religious art. I found myself defending the more visceral, more Roman depictions of Jesus and God on the basis that the entire point of Jesus was his manifestation as human.
To ascribe certain human possibilities to him, such as lust, or even supporting a particular sports team, should not be considered transgressive; indeed I recall, in my youth, our parish priest would often offer up prayers for the local Gaelic football club, suggesting at least the possibility of partisanship. And the very fact that nuns are “brides of Christ” is suggestive of, well…
Catholicism doesn’t really have a problem with idolatry either. Catholics complaining about depictions of Christ do not have the same theological basis as Orthodox Sunni Muslims, who at least can point to some rules on portrayals (which is not to suggest that everyone should follow those rules). Catholics, with our brightly painted statues, sacred medals and all the rest, don’t really have a leg to stand on this one.
These squeals of “offence” are really demands for “respect”, in the Corleone sense. And since the Danish Muhammad cartoons, religions have been in a respect-based arms war. Every time you hear a conservative Christian moan that this or that comic or writer “wouldn’t say that about the Muslims”, remember, they are not praising their own faith’s humility, but condemning its timidity. The archdiocese of Rio is playing a version of this game with its claim to be offended by a Photoshopped football jersey. There’s no reason we should play along.
The European Court of Human Rights have today ruled in favour of an Italian journalist sued for defamation, citing Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights which protects the right to freedom of expression.
Maurizio Belpietro was convicted in Italy on defamation charges for a story published in national newspaper Quotidiano Nazionale in 2004, when he was paper’s director. The story, penned by an Italian senator, accused Italian judges and prosecutors ‘of using political strategies in their fight against the Mafia.’
Two prosecutors sued both Belpietro and the senator in question, arguing the article was defamatory. The latter was acquitted on the basis that he had written the article in his role as a senator. Belpietro, while also initially acquitted, was in 2009 given a suspended 4-month jail sentence, as well as being ordered to pay substantial sums to the plaintiffs. His appeal was dismissed in 2010.
Belpietro took the case to the European Court of Human Rights, which today ruled that the conviction was in violation of Article 10. He was awarded €10,000 in non-pecuniary damage and €5,000 for costs and expenses.
The situation for freedom of expression in Italy is curtailed by a lack of media plurality, restrictive media legislation and a digital sphere restricted by a strict privacy law. The new parliament is challenging the overt politicisation of the media, yet much needs to be done before Italy meets its international obligations to protect freedom of expression.
Freedom of expression is guaranteed through Article 21 of the Italian constitution. However, civil and political rights have been in decline in recent years due to corruption and restrictions on civil society. Restrictive NGO legislation has curtailed the space for Italian civil society with NGO status only given to organisations recognised by the Foreign Affairs Department under Law 49/1987 and an overdependence on public funding that has been described as ‘a burden and a limitation for Italian NGOs’. A Council of Europe expert council also highlighted the government’s ability to temporarily suspend NGOs for a broad range of offenses. This has reduced Italian citizens’ right to freedom of association and expression.
Italy’s defamation laws although low-cost contain archaic provisions: defamation is still a criminal offence and there are special protections for politicians. Italian law contains provisions penalising insult to the Republic, constitutional institutions, the armed forces and the Italian nation, which should be repealed. To ‘offend the honour’ of the President (and the Pope) is also a criminal offence, with a recent conviction. Italian law criminalises offenses that are motivated by racial, ethnic, national, or religious bias, but excludes gender or sexual orientation. This inconsistency in hate speech provisions has been criticised as discriminatory, while the law itself is overly broad and may chill freedom of expression.
Media freedom
Italy is amongst the lowest ranked of EU member states in media freedom indices.
The limited media plurality in Italy is the most significant restriction on media freedom. Italian broadcasting has long been dominated by a powerful duopoly between private owner Mediaset and public owner RAI (Radiotelevisione Italiana), a situation the Council of Europe has dubbed the ‘Italian anomaly’. Despite attempts to reform the state of the media through the Gasparri and Frattini Laws of 2004, there are no restrictions on direct media ownership by political actors, and there are no requirements for media to be politically independent. AgCom also found that in Italy the two largest TV stations received over 79% of total TV advertising spend.
A study undertaken in 2012 for Italian Regulator AgCom found television plurality is limited compared to radio and newspaper markets. The most concentrated market was online. The low newspaper readership (only 20% of the population) and the lack of online news media in comparison with other G8 states compounds the TV monopoly and the lack of plurality.
A number of laws constitute big challenges to press freedom in Italy. On 10 June 2010, the Italian Senate passed a controversial wiretap law on electronic surveillance. The bill had the potential to severely restrict pre-trial reporting, as it could hinder the publishing of documents related to court proceedings or investigations before the start of a trial with the possibility for fines of up to €450,000. In protest, TV and internet journalists staged a news blackout strike in July 2010 and Wikipedia disabled its Italian website.
There have also been reports of individual reporters being targeted. On February 2011, police searched the apartment of Il Giornale journalist Anna Maria Greco, who had written an article on a Milan prosecutor. In August 2012 Orfeo Donatini and Tiziano Marson, of newspaper Alto Adige were sentenced to four months in prison and fined 15,000 Euros for libel, for alleging that local politician Sven Knoll had taken part in a neo-Nazi summit, despite the fact that the story was based on a police report.
Digital freedom
Italians have generally been slower to embrace new technology and the internet than comparable European countries, with the latest figures putting internet penetration at 56.80%.
The country has laws and practises on data retention and surveillance, which pose a threat to privacy and freedom of expression. There have been instances where the police have practised surveillance on entire internet service providers (ISPs). In 2005, an Italian collective ISP Austistici/Inventati who host a wide range of civil society organisations discovered a police backdoor to their server that compromised their client’s privacy.
In 2010, three Google executives were convicted of violating Italian privacy laws. It was a watershed case – the first to hold Google staff directly responsible to for content posted on their system setting a negative precedent for internet intermediaries. Watchdog groups raised concerns that if third parties, like internet service providers and search engines can be prosecuted based on content they have not authored it could make them more likely to censor, block and take down content. This could have a chilling effect in freedom of expression online.
Italy also has some of the world’s strictest legislation on copyright, in particular file sharing. The Urbani law passed in May 2004 and included possible sentences of up to three years in prison or fines of some 200,000 Euros for breach of copyright.
The latest Google transparency report (July-December 2012) stated that Italy made 111 takedown requests in total, below comparable countries such as the UK and France, while the latest Twitter report (July 2012) stated that Italy made less than 10 user information requests.
Arts
Italy has a vibrant artistic scene, and freedom of expression in the arts is protected in the constitution. However artistic freedom has been chilled by a number of prosecutions for satirical comment and anti-religious art that has impacted on free expression.
Catholicism is no longer the official religion of Italy, but religious sensitivities remain that chill free speech. In 2008, comedian Sabina Guzzanti was charged with insulting the pope, after making jokes about him at a left-wing political rally. Political satire is also chilled. Silvio Berlusconi had also previously threatened the comedienne with a €20million lawsuit after she mocked him during her TV show on RAI. The show was cancelled after two episodes.
In 2001, another comedian Daniele Luttazzi stated in an interview in with journalist Marco Travaglio that “you are a free man in a shitty country”, referring to Italy and the institutions that govern it. For this he was sacked by RAI, and sued for “insult to the Nation”, under article 291 of the criminal code. He was acquitted in October 2002, but he was never re-employed by RAI.
Chinese communist party newspaper The People’s Daily has today denied allegations that China hacked into the computer systems of various US media outlets. The state-run newspaper denied that officials had hacked The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, also refuting claims from The Washington Post that it had been targeted. The People’s Daily said that the national security allegations from the US were a cover-up for imposing economic sanctions on China. The Obama administration will reportedly address the attacks as an economic threat in a National Intelligence Estimate report, meaning the US can impose sanctions in China in response. Concern has been mounting in America that China has been responsible for a series of sustained cyber attacks on government agencies, US companies and media outlets — a US congressional report last year named China “the most threatening actor in cyberspace”.
A french journalist researching prostitution and human trafficking in Cambodia has had a seven year jail sentence in absentia upheld under prostitution charges. Daniel Lainé was charged by Phnom Penh City Court on 29 January for soliciting prostitutes and issued with a “red notice” by Interpol following a request from the court, banning him from reporting anywhere outside of France. Lainé had originally been sentenced in 2010 after being caught secretly filming a prostitute without permission, a charge the journalist denies. The charges are thought to be linked to Lainé’s 2003 documentary exposing sex tourism in Cambodia and are allegedly supported by a written witness statement from someone who never appeared in court during the case. Lainé is a filmmaker for Tony Comiti Productions and was winner of a World Press Photo award in 1991.
These crisps have caused offence amongst the Catholic community
On 1 February, a film maker accused the Italian government of censorship for calling off the screening of his film for being too political. Bill Emmott, former editor of the Economist, was due to show his documentary Girlfriend in a Coma on 13 February at the National Museum of the 21st Century Arts, but the organisers were contacted on 1 February to say that the ministry of culture had ordered the event to be postponed ahead of the parliamentary elections on 24 February. Emmott, who’s film takes a critical look at Italy and the problems it faces, said there is a culture of denial in the country. The film has already been screened in several European countries and the US and is expected to remain postponed until the elections are over.
An appeals court in the Philippines has upheld a decision to pursue a libel case and issue of arrest warrants against a minor and five other people for online defamation charges made on 13 March 2012. A teenage blogger was accused of posting defamatory comments on Celine Quanico’s blog on 6 April 2008, along with Justine Dimaano, Francesa Vanessa Fugen, Anthony Jay Foronda, Roberto Armando Hidalgo and Danielle Vicaldo. Quanico said that Dimaano had posted a Yahoo messenger conversation titled “meet my backstabber friend”, but had changed the alleged victim’s name — who was 16 at the time of the alleged offence. Other insults posted on the site included “bitch”, “ugly”, “loser” and “liar”. The Cyber Crime Prevention Act went into effect on 3 October in the Philippines, after it was suspended following calls to remove the law from constitution.
Chain sandwich store Pret A Manger has withdrawn a new “Virgin Mary” brand of crisps from shelves following religious complaints. The bloody mary cocktail flavoured crisps had been introduced last week, but prompted complaints, including from Catholic groups that the brand was offensive to Jesus’ mother. The company said it removed the product to avoid further offence after noting the “strength of feeling” behind the few complaints they received. The unsold crisps will be donated to homeless charities across the country. Among the complainants was The Reverend Nick Donnelly, deacon of the Diocese of Lancaster, who said after Pret removed the product that the incident taught the Catholic community how to defend their faith in the future.
