In today’s media landscape, dominated by the pervasiveness of social networks and the immediacy of online information, the relationship between justice and communication is becoming increasingly complex. The book “Giustizia e social media” by Professor Pieremilio Sammarco, published by Il Mulino, thoroughly examines the transformations that the Internet has introduced in the way judicial proceedings are narrated and perceived.
With the spread of digital platforms and the possibility for anyone to share content and opinions, judicial proceedings are now subject not only to the judgment of the courts, but also to that of a virtual “public jury.” Online, in fact, anyone can comment on, interpret, or distort facts, often without having the necessary expertise to understand the complexity of legal processes. This results in an uncontrolled flow of information that risks influencing public perception of guilt or innocence even before a verdict is reached.
The Harmful Power of Digital Information
The internet has revolutionized the very concept of information. Whereas in the past the dissemination of news was the exclusive domain of professional journalism, today every user is potentially a broadcaster. Blogs, social media, and video platforms make it possible to share textual and audiovisual content in real time which, although not subject to the rules of traditional publishing, can have a far more lasting harmful impact.
Unlike printed publications or television reports, online communication does not fade over time. The persistence of digital content, amplified by search engine indexing, makes harm to a person’s honor, reputation, and privacy effectively permanent. This is compounded by the difficulty for victims to obtain effective protection: the lack of specific extrajudicial oversight bodies and the possible location of servers abroad significantly limit legal remedies, often forcing victims into long and complex legal proceedings.
The Spectacularization of the Trial
In the book, Professor Sammarco also analyzes the phenomenon of the so-called “socialization of the trial.” Today, judicial proceedings are increasingly reported on, commented on, and publicly debated, turning into true media events. The emotional logic that dominates the web tends to replace the rational logic of the law, and judicial narratives risk being reduced to spectacle, potentially undermining the fairness of the trial and the protection of those involved.
This dynamic involves not only the media and public opinion, but sometimes also the key actors in the trial themselves—defendants, defense lawyers, or prosecutors—who use social networks to communicate their positions or influence the debate. This is a delicate area that requires extremely careful and responsible use of digital tools.
Transparency and the Limits of Audiovisual Coverage
Another central issue concerns the audiovisual coverage of trials. Digital technologies now make it easy to record and broadcast hearings in full, with the aim of ensuring transparency and bringing justice closer to citizens. However, this possibility raises complex issues: the protection of the privacy of those involved, the safeguarding of minors, the integrity of investigations, and above all, the risk that the presence of cameras may influence the independence of judges or jurors.
International experiences show that the trend toward livestreaming public hearings is growing, but also highlight the need for strict regulation to balance freedom of information with the right to a fair trial.
Social Media and Freedom of Expression
Social networks represent the peak of contemporary freedom of expression, but this freedom is not—and cannot be—absolute. Every right is limited by the rights of others, and freedom of expression must be balanced with the protection of personal dignity and reputation.
In the judicial context, this reflection is closely linked to the fundamental principle of the presumption of innocence, which protects not only the individual but the entire justice system. Portraying someone publicly as “guilty” before a final verdict does not only harm that person, but also undermines public trust in the impartiality of the justice system.
Presumption of Innocence as a Personality Right
Sammarco emphasizes that the presumption of innocence can be fully understood as a personality right. It forms part of the broader set of guarantees that protect an individual’s moral and social integrity. The communication of judicial matters must therefore respect truth, informational balance, and the psychological well-being and reputation of the individual involved.
Conclusion
Pieremilio Sammarco’s work offers a thorough and timely reflection on the delicate balance between information, justice, and individual freedoms in the digital age. In a world where any piece of information can go viral within seconds and remain online indefinitely, it is essential to promote a culture of responsible communication that safeguards both the right to information and the dignity of individuals, as well as the authority of judicial institutions.
Original article link:
https://www.letture.org/giustizia-e-social-media-pieremilio-sammarco