Letters
Letters to the editor •
The freedom to spout nonsense and the danger of treating it as political proposals
Who wrote to the editor-in-chief, Claudio Cerasa
28 OCT 26
Translated by AI
To the Editor – I agree with Maurizio Acerbo: praising Hamas should not be a criminal offence. Nor should praising the Duce, Pol Pot or the Illinois Nazis. Nor should setting up an Instagram page or a Telegram group to support ideas – however delusional – lead to imprisonment. Even less so should Youssef Siher be accused of contempt of the armed forces. In fact, such an offence should not exist at all, just as offences of contempt against the nation, the Republic and its president, the flag and religion should not exist. In the past, prominent figures have been convicted, including Giovannino Guareschi, Pier Paolo Pasolini, Oliviero Toscani, Umberto Bossi and Eva Klotz. These are convictions of which no one should be proud – least of all those who disagreed with the words that led to them – and which represent one of the most insidious and resilient (as they say) legacies of fascism. It is called freedom of expression and applies above all to those from whom we feel most distant. Many invoke it as it suits them. There is, however, a simple way to demonstrate that one lives up to the values one proclaims: to fight to abolish all offences of opinion, including defamation and various forms of apologia. I agree with Acerbo, as I was saying, but now that I have explained why, I fear he will not agree with me.
Carlo Stagnaro
The freedom to spout nonsense is a non-negotiable freedom, just as is the freedom to preach hatred. The point, with regard to the Acerbo case but also the Youssef Siher case, is something else entirely. It is not about who considers such content to be criminal. The point is who regards that content as milestones in building an alternative government. To be clear, the point is who regards Hamas’s propaganda as a powerful reference point for a new progressive way of thinking. On the freedom to spout nonsense – which is different from propagating racial or ethnic hatred, or inciting discrimination and violence on racial, ethnic, national or religious grounds, as set out in the Mancino Act – just one question: where do I sign?
To the Editor – Since 8 March, in the pages of this newspaper, we have been reiterating a view that sounds like blasphemy in progressive circles: gender policies, as we have conceived them, have failed. Not because of patriarchal sabotage, but because of inefficiency. The figures tell the story: in Italy, female employment stands at around 53–54 per cent, compared with over 70 per cent for men. But the divide does not arise solely in the workplace: it also arises at home. With the first child, their career paths diverge: men remain in work, whilst many women leave it. This is the ‘child penalty’, a price paid amidst cots and baby food. The state responds with bureaucratic ritual. There are squabbles over dress codes, and all-women’s committees are set up, as if men were the ogre to be expelled rather than the ally to be called upon to fulfil their caregiving duties. And funding is channelled into equality certifications, audits and labels: a mountain of paperwork, whilst mothers rush between the office and the family and fathers remain the sole breadwinners. Caught in the middle are the children. Who looks after them when the adults have neither the time nor the energy? Increasingly, it is the digital babysitter. The smartphone, which entered the home as a safety net (“call me as soon as you arrive”), has become the main hub of social interaction. Amidst games, videos and challenges, young people risk isolation if they stay off the internet and defenceless exposure if they go online. The platforms know this: children’s attention is a resource to be monetised. In the United States, Meta and other tech giants are facing lawsuits over the nature of their services and the alleged damage to young people’s mental health. Policy oscillates between security-focused rhetoric and pedagogical lectures. At school, mobile phones are banned and conduct marks are being made stricter, but too little is being done to teach children how to manage frustration, respect others and accept rejection. Simply switching off a screen is not enough to foster an educational relationship. Instead, resources should be shifted from superficial accreditation schemes to actual services: affordable nurseries, after-school clubs offering sport and community activities, the effective involvement of both parents, and psychologists in classrooms. Training the doctors and engineers of tomorrow means cultivating not only knowledge, but also practical skills and personal development. Equality is not measured by a corporate label: it is also measured by mothers’ freedom to work, by fathers’ responsibility to care for their children, and by the ability not to leave children bereft of adult care and held hostage by a screen.
Erminia Giorno
To the Editor – Siher’s arrest in connection with the events in Milan reminds me of the judicial expropriation of Ilva. The cases are very different, but the method is the same: media hype, pre-determined culprits and the judiciary doing politics a favour. As a defender of due process, I can only cry out: (supervised) freedom for Siher and (productive) freedom for the Taranto blast furnace!
Corrado Beldì
To the editor – Isn’t Ma Youssef Siher, by any chance, Mubarak’s nephew?
Giuliano Cazzola
To the editor – The primaries “must be held soon”, it is “important to avoid a two-horse race”, and sending weapons to Ukraine “means fuelling a war that feeds on itself”. It may sound like Giuseppe Conte, but the remarks actually come from Goffredo Bettini in an interview with La Repubblica. Take note.
Luca Rocca
To the editor – Would it not be reasonable to assume that even the lawyers representing the state were secretly relieved at losing the case, given that they stand to benefit?
Renzo Catello
Surgical.