It ends with a victory Fedez the defamation lawsuit from Pietro Masothe man from Verona who, in 2013, served 22 years in prison and 5 years in semi-freedom, which he was sentenced to for the murder of his parents.
“Delicate river, satin stones, greetings to the family of Pietro Maso, life always holds you with your head held high, as if blood is pouring from your nose…” was the offensive phrase from the song “No Game-Freestyle”, which brought the rapper a lawsuit two and a half years ago.
For the plaintiff, the facts no longer have any “historical relevance.”
According to the plaintiff, “the expressions used” in the passage “refer in a clear, direct and explicit manner to the signatory, indicated by his first and last name.” And that is precisely why Maso argued in the lawsuit filed through his attorney Alessio Pomponi“seem objectively defamatory and certainly cannot be attributed to the use of strong images that can be assigned to the musical genre or the artistic style of the authors.”
The events recounted in the song also date back to 1991, when the then 19-year-old Maso killed his parents with a bar and an awl in the family villa in Montecchia di Crosara, in the Verona area. Maso was subsequently arrested, tried and sentenced to 30 years in prison. A temporal distance that would mean for the ex-prisoner that the matter no longer had “current relevance and historical relevance”.
The man now works in a non-profit organization that helps prisoners in semi-freedom reintegrate into society.
The investigating judge's decision: There is no right to be forgotten
The investigating judge in Rome does not agree with Maso's demands. Maria Gaspari, which ordered the case to be dismissed. The judge took into account the greater freedoms afforded to “artistic creation,” which would not be offensive even if it manipulated reality to “achieve broader and ideal ends.”
In addition, Maso cannot invoke the right to be forgotten for the matter that interests him, which is only granted in cases where the facts are no longer relevant or of no longer interest to the community. According to the judge's decision, a condition that does not apply in this specific case because the seriousness of the crime and its notoriety would make it of general interest “even long after it was committed.”
The defense attorney speaks of a “judgment for stigmatization”
The passage most contested by the lawyers defending Maso is precisely the non-recognition of the right to be forgotten. What he is demanding is “forgetting,” says the lawyer. He was shocked when he found his first and last name in a song by a famous artist. Three generations have passed since the terrible acts. He has served his entire sentence. How long will his stigmatization sentence last? Forever?”.
According to the lawyer, the judge's decision contradicts the Constitution, which “affirms a completely different principle: we must stop at the right to be forgotten.” We cannot hide behind the objection that everything is in the public interest.