"What scares gazzettieri of proxy
F. Let us
E'incredibile, all lie. That mind is the best, because otherwise we think that Ferruccio De Bortoli and Greve and Luigi Vittorio Ferrarella (Courier) and Mario and Massimo Calabresi Gramellini (Print) and Ezio Mauro and Gustavo Zagrebelsky (Republic) and many others, virtually all , not so much ignore the new rule on the secret investigation, but the previous one, ie the current, that launched in 1989. What does the old rule, alias Articles 684 and 329 of the Code of Criminal Procedure? He says that an act of investigation is no longer secret after a suspected it comes to his knowledge - and so far we have - but adds that it is equally forbidden to publish the text in quotation marks an interrogation or an interception, if I may say publish the content (the famous 'summary') but no text. So what's the difference with the new standard? Here it is, very Italian: the difference is that if they are all fucked up now, because it was provided for only a ridiculous fine of 130 € (with oblation, that is without even a trial) while the new draft law provides for penalties to journalists and editors can not be overlooked, if any. It's like the law Sirchia on smoke bans even before there were all identical, but they were bland and then gives a damn.
But there's more: The new standard, in theory, is more permissive than the last. The old article 114 of the Code of Procedure, in fact, in the second paragraph read as follows: "It is prohibited to publish, even in part, acts no longer be confidential until the preliminary investigations are concluded or until the end of the preliminary hearing 'This was the old rule, although all the violated. Well, the new permits at least the above summary for publication. In the past - in theory, we repeat - not even that.
Here, then, the real difference between this and the previous law, and all those proposals in recent years, including this Decree Mastella that the Prodi government had tried to launch even more severe current: the difference is that this law c ' is the risk that it works. Only the risk, we fear. And what they are writing, however, all the newspapers? We talk, badateci, including normal and decent fellow, not only of those dipietrini Travaglini and every day are incapable of circumvention. They write lies. They write that there can be no more "informative" write "the truth" 'News', things like that, slogans. The main newspapers are long lists of scandals "that we can no longer know" even if it is true, taken one by one we'd been able to know more about everyone, although without reference to any person outside the investigation and even tried. Even Gomorrah, were able to memorize, and even photos of Stefano Cucchi that journalists saw before the magistrates. The "news" will still be prejudice, just sapersele provide, but do not consider "news" only that which is extracted from a binder judiciary. Just above that interest, the news: the other day, for example, the Corriere del Mezzogiorno has given Available only one that has largely taken over and we both know why. Recall that the prosecutor of Trani Michael Ruggiero, last December, had investigated the director of Tg1 Augusto Minzolini investigation to reveal the secret: this only because he had talked on the phone to call their own attorney. Well, now it turns out that the same pm Ruggiero is under investigation for the same thing, because he had previously spilled on the phone the same episode - the convening of Minzolini in proxy - a journalist. The whole thing seems strange, because it works as a photographer, often, the passage of cards and papers from judges and journalists but the news, as mentioned, has resumed only Free. It does not affect the article? Could possibly spoil the demagogic mayonnaise these days? There is one thing, under the new law, which can no longer do any form, either text or summarized: to publish the first time - before the trial, that is - the contents of interceptions. And thank you very much: it is the main reason why they made the law. Let's talk about those interceptions that no country in the world public opinion as us: yet made are democracies in which journalism and justice are very serious business. Why there and not here
yes? Because in France or the United Kingdom no idiot cries of fascism? Because directors and journalists, we do not want to admit that this is simply maintaining the status quo - to publish everything, rubbish anyone - if only to sell more copies? What then - who told sdottoreggia - in the acts and orders of arrest interceptions there should not be: because they would be the means of gathering evidence, not evidence, just like the anonymous letters, or the blow of confidence or other stuff in issue should not even enter, and which we - unique in the world - become queens instead of evidence, gossip, legal literature. Barbarism, all admit. Before publishing.
0 comments:
Post a Comment