The intervention of the court reporter Maria Francesca Chiappe, giornalista giudiziarista dell'Unione Sarda, ha portato al convegno dell'11 ottobre la testimonianza di chi quotidianamente, misurandosi su casi sempre differenti e spesso contradditori, deve coniugare due diritti fondamentali: il diritto di cronaca e il diritto alla privacy. di
Maria Francesca Chiappe Emanuela Trapani viene rapita in Lombardia da Vallanzasca, il bel Renè. La ragazza ha sedici anni. Dopo la liberazione viene intervistata in tv, sul rapimento certo, ma anche sul fascino che avrebbe esercitato su di lei il bandito. Era vittima del sequestro, vittima della sindrome di Stoccolma, vittima dei mass media. Era il 1976. Oggi non sarebbe neanche immaginabile un servizio del genere. Non ci sarebbe neanche un’intervista per dire “sono contenta”, come pure nel 1991 era stato fatto con Farouk Kassam, 8 anni. Vi do la prova: il ragazzino scomparso qualche mese fa. Foto in tv, sui giornali, chi l’ha visto. Ovvio: era l’unico modo per trovarlo. Poi l’hanno trovato, nessuno lo aveva rapito, era scappato per paura di affrontare coi genitori un brutto voto a scuola. L’Unione Sarda quel giorno non ha pubblicato (tra mille discussioni interne al giornale) il volto del ragazzino.
In 32 years the world of information not only on children, but more importantly, the child is being changed, the approach of journalists has changed and changed the sensitivity of public opinion.
A colleague of mine, older than me, told me that he had interviewed, with photos, a 14 year old girl forced into prostitution by parents, Villacidro. Today, no journalist would think even proposing it. But there are many other cases. Starting with the photo of the naked body of Orrù Gisele, killed at 15 years Carbonia (and in fact every time we reoccupied the case, not the public more, apart from a hiccup, a few years ago). And much today we would probably not even the detailed chronicle of the evidence in the Court of Assizes of his sister, still a minor.
In 1987 no one has found fault with the publication of the name and photograph of the 15-year-old Sardinian who had hijacked a plane to Holland: I remember the TV images with a stolen car chase n the airport to the house of the boy. At that time there was the Charter of Treviso, there was the Charter of the duties of journalists, there was no Article 13 of the Code of Criminal Procedure child. It has come a long way since then. Although, in truth, in the case of the yellow shaft Nuxis there was a return to the past: in 1997 a man killed his wife by throwing it into the well, the main prosecution witness was the daughter of a minor, which became the name even in 2000 when the accused had tried to defend himself using two fake letters in which the daughter retracted the allegations. We have written with great attention to the news, and the girl, who had not written anything and did not retract anything, it was still a minor, yet almost accused of having sent his father to jail innocent. It happened eight years ago. I do not think that today we would come to publish the news, not like that, I think. But ask in a similar situation, faced with two letters instead exonerate the innocent father? What should we do? Do not write anything? We must always follow the letter of the law? We are sure that the protection of the child will always prevail?
E 'chronicle of these days the acquittal on appeal of the young Nurri accused of having tortured the son of his partner, the story of the penis skinned to understand. When the young man was arrested we published everything, even when the child's mother committed suicide, and even when the child's grandfather committed suicide, and last names. A few years ago. The other day, however, change of direction: no names of mother and grandfather, in the interests of the child who is ten years old. To confirm that our sensitivity on this subject is constantly changing and we do not hide behind the fact that the news or photos had already been released. Sometimes
facciamo qualche scivolata, è vero: mi riferisco alla pubblicazione della foto della figlia di Matteo Boe, moribonda al pronto soccorso. Ci sono stati due procedimenti, uno penale, che ha portato all’oscuramento della notizia dalla’archivio on line da parte della Procura della Repubblica, l’altro disciplinare, nei confronti del direttore. Dico subito che questo procedimento è stato archiviato dall’Ordine della Lombardia che ha ritenuto il diritto di cronaca prevalente rispetto alla tutela dei minori. E comunque si tratta di un caso limite, perchè la ragazzina quando è uscita la foto era già morta. Bisognerebbe discutere se la tutela resiste anche dopo la morte.
Abbiamo sbagliato altre volte, come quando abbiamo A mother told the protest outside the courthouse for the custody of the child which showed the photo, then finished in the newspaper, and we were censored.
But when the star of a news story that shook the city, the watchmaker accused of raping three children with his partner and colleague of the woman, after the acquittal had asked to speak with the newspaper name, the surname we said no: his name was never published to protect her children, the protection that the acquittal of the father did not fail.
But these are big news events. Then there are all the others, and there are many, less important, although not in the newspaper now I say create threads, but it certainly raises the question of how to behave. It is estimated, from time to time. We get to the point of not even publish the common place where cases of child abuse because, especially in small towns, can be easily recognized.
Anyway, there are only cases of sexual violence which pose a problem to protect the child, there are only victims, there are also suspects: those arrested for petty theft, robbery, to drug dealing. The protection also applies to them. I did a search in the archives of newspapers in light of the today and I saw that up to ten years ago, we wrote the name of a regularly arrested, as well as age and then only the initial his brother ended up in a minor cell with him. Today we ask: May I?. Do not write the name of the child is almost a farce, because it tells who is the brother. So we tend not to speak of brothers, and if we really say that they are brothers, then skip the name of the age. Just like that? Always? There can be exceptions?
But we also say a lot of questions. And I would also like to ask you. How should we deal in no case such as happened in 1994 in Porto Torres, a man is stabbed by the minor child's mother intervened to defend the man against whom he had thrown? Need not to name the boy? Of course not. We should obscure the name of the father and mother? Need? Perhaps we should also refrain that has happened in Porto Torres. You might as well not write anything. And the record, then? There is also a right to be informed: indeed always gives way before a child?
And in front of the case such as that occurred in 1995 in Sassari, a father throws the girl in the fireplace and then accuses the other son, a minor: no names, not even the father? The rules are clear, I know: no names. But what we write then? Nothing? Not even facts serious?
but raises another question. When it finishes, if it ends, the protection of children? I refer to a story we all know to make me understand it now: Erika, who along with Omar, the boyfriend, killed madre e il fratellino, una volta diventata maggiorenne può finire sui giornali in fotografia, come di fatto è successo? E prima dell’arresto, poteva finire sui giornali come figlia della vittima e testimone, com’è avvenuto?
E ancora. L’episodio dell’altro giorno di Milano, col senegalese ammanettato e gettato a terra dai vigili urbani perché il figlioletto non aveva la cintura di sicurezza. Non credo che l’allarme razzismo possa retrocedere davanti alla tutela della privacy del bambino.
Propongo anche un altro tema: vale per tutti i bambini la tutela? Sempre e comunque? Ancfhe per gli stranieri, dunque. Penso all’undicenne imbottito di tritolo che si era fermato at a checkpoint in Israel and had not detonated. I remember the title of a newspaper "I'm afraid" cfhe paraphrased the title of the book Ammanniti, and the eyes of that child. The picture has gone around the world. He was 11 years, was protected and was socially more important to denounce the use of children in terrorism?
E 'food for thought that I offer to you all.
chance And now, indeed, provoked: a few years ago a trip to Genoa to Cagliari party is over in the sea. On board was a team of swimmers Cagliari: one of them, 15 years, had opened the door to save almost all passengers. A hero, awarded a medal for bravery by the civilian mayor of Cagliari. Protagonist positive, then you can write. But: a fact that was later criminal proceedings, the pilot had been tried and convicted, and that kid, and everyone else, were witnesses of that process. So it is a witness or hero?
We, in my journal, in some cases we also exaggerated. As late as last month c 'and was a lively discussion about publishing the name of a woman who had hit and seriously injured two people at Poetto. The problem was that it was a mother who ran into the car to bring her child to the emergency room. We are here today to discuss and confront the newspaper but when we do eventually have to decide. And that time we decided to publish the woman's name without saying that the child was his son.
We have done well? Evil? I do not know. What is certain is that today no longer says "it is news, it should be published" when there are children are raised, then it is decided, perhaps mistaken, but I assure you that we discuss. And perhaps the rule of the Code of Criminal Procedure child should be reviewed, should be more flexible and allow for a margin of dicrezionalità the journalist in order to decide on a case by case basis.
