The controversy triggered by the "Republic", so-called "purple people" and intellectuals from the usual circus on the subject of wiretapping seem a good example of the level of deterioration in the discussion, political or otherwise, in this country. The processes the intentions in these cases, should never be made, probably because if the intention of the majority in carrying out the law is not directed to the defense of "privacy", it seems equally obvious that those who oppose this law (and especially the professionals of the press and information) does not do it for the defense of press freedom. On this point he wrote, in detail, Filippo Facci in an article some time ago on "Free", in which it was said in clear words that the main reason why journalists do not want this law is that eavesdropping issue (especially if itchy) is the only way they can to increase sales of their newspapers. That is a worthy interest, for charity, but particular, and as such must be considered, no stand, however, as defenders of press freedom and freedom of information to (softly) I allow myself to doubt more and more. Moreover, for a while I wonder what the "right to be informed" that, according to our liberals (who are not liberals) should be regarded as a "duty to be informed," according to the motto "I can tell (ie: I read Travaglio), therefore I am."
In the name of duty or right to information (and the rubbish, of course), our liberals are posited opposition between privacy and press freedom at the expense of the first and the second benefit, as noted, quite rightly Worried Giovanni Belardelli "Corriere della Sera yesterday (Sun June 13). It takes little, in fact, to understand that the motto "Intercettateci all" is the negation of every principle of individual freedom and opens the door to every form of totalitarianism (Belardelli Recalls the massive use of wiretapping that was done in the GDR, but apparently does not realize that this model really like the liberals of our house). Anyone who says "intercettateci all" (or "the innocent have nothing to fear from a process", which is another formulation of the same concept) or is in bad faith or is an idiot. If it is bad faith, they are strongly encouraged to make open profession of totalitarianism (so to play cards), while in the case of idiocy, then there are remedies.
In the meantime, we highlight curious reversals in the opinions of some leading intellectual on the phenomenon of interceptions. I remember an old article by Sabino Cassese denouncing the phenomenon of interceptions, but I doubt that today, in his guise of the constitutional court, will decide in favor of the new law. The same applies to Stefano Rodota, former data protection commissioner. As evidenced by an amusing article by Paul Bracalini up the newspaper today (Monday June 14) Now the prof. Rodotà is one of the strongest supporters of the campaign of "Republic" against the law-gag, but when it still employed to ensure privacy, the same Rodotà railed against "this relentless publicizing of private spaces, this remains unknown and unwanted exposure to eyes [that] affects the individual and social behavior, [because] they know scrutinized reduces the spontaneity and freedom. "Rhetoric aside literary, fully shared. Shareable, above all, is the answer Rodotà (one yesterday, not now) provided to the prosecutor Vigna, who regarded him as a disgraced public price to pay to defend themselves from crime, "once even resorted to torture '. It is the same argument that I had used in a conversation with the guests who supported the use of wiretaps, diners which I pointed out that this is the logic of the" end justifies the means "approach to politics that is (according to Machiavelli and his followers), but not the logic of the law, for which not all means are good because it recognizes the existence of something (person, individual) who is an "end in itself."
On the other hand, if you follow the logic first, not just the interceptions should be extended (potentially all citizens) and prolonged indefinitely, but hoped it would be a situation such as that described by Philip Dick, a society in which the Judges include the crimes and the police arrest people before they can do crimes. It would be a very efficient and secure world, would not be a free world. But the right is precisely a "system of freedom" (Kant). That, today, even well-educated people think in such a distorted manner is not a good sign, and also by the legal culture arrived worrying signals. The natural rights of the individual are valid only in words, and has been for a while. If you once mentioned the radical legal positivism of Kelsen, today's "orphans of Marx" rediscover the work of Carl Schmitt (genial personality, but still sentenced at Nuremberg, and theoretician of the explicit right of the strongest).
Forfeiture of the concept of "right" and carelessness towards the "freedom" go hand in hand, which explains the insensitivity of a radical reform of justice (but we are obviously happy exception is the case of the book North and Pisapia which I'll discuss shortly). Not only that you forward a culture that not only look for solutions the problem, but denies the problem. To the cry of "intercettateci all."
0 comments:
Post a Comment