GROSSETO. In November 2019, Michele Rossi said Bee he had gone to demonstrate in front of the town hall to demand accommodation, after his vehicles had been evicted from via Giordania. That episode was followed by news articles, which were also the subject of comments. Some of these had not been appreciated by Ape, who had filed a lawsuit for defamation. Four people from Grosseto have now been sentenced by judge Marco Bilisari to 500 euros each and to have to compensate Rossi with 1,500 euros each, in addition to the costs of forming a civil party (lawyer Filippo Maria Bougleux).
Rossi had chained himself in front of the town hall: “I want a place to live, they have taken away my dignity” he said, accompanying his statements with a sign and his reasons were then listened to by Fausto Turbanti, councilor for the municipal police at the time. The Municipality then recalled that, through Coeso, it had provided Rossi with food and accommodation in an accommodation facility on the outskirts of Grosseto. Coeso had also provided him with a small financial contribution and had ensured that it would support him with all the tools available to the social sector.
What comments were the subject of the criminal proceedings? Diego Nocciolini (defence Massimiliano Arcioni) had among other things observed that Ape would never have worked in his lifetime and that he would not have paid taxes. Alessio Arezzini (lawyer Alberto Vannetti) had accused Rossi of living off the company. Luca Riverdora (Carnicelli lawyer) had equated the use of the agricultural land made by Ape to that of an open-air landfill. Gerardo Scarano (lawyer Fabrizio Rossi) of never having paid taxes and more.
Ape had said in court, among other things, that he had been the victim of untrue statements, that he had become the target of haters who would have reported things based on hearsay without having carried out the appropriate checks. According to the judge, what was written on social media, if it had ever been tolerable years ago in bar chatter, i.e. in a small group, is not tolerable on the internet. Rossi’s personal events, his psychological condition of that period and his decision to chain himself to ask for accommodation, perhaps in a public housing apartment, are not reasons to justify comments of that nature. In other words, making him the object of derision is sufficient reason to lead to a conviction, given that the terms of continence and respect for the historical truth of the facts would not have been observed. And that in any case, even if the terms used on social media have become too strong, there is still a need for a legal barrier of protection.
