The Association for Juridical Studies on Immigration (ASGI) brought proceedings against a famous public figure (M.A.), asking the Court of Turin to declare discriminatory and harassing the character of certain statements published on his Facebook profile. The contested statements, published on 19 and 26 January 2026, concerned Islam and persons of North African origin and generally associated religious or national affiliation with cultural inferiority and the commission of offences.

During the proceedings, Progetto Aisha APS and Promus APS intervened in support of ASGI’s claims as organisations pursuing interests connected with the Muslim community. The defendant remained in default. The court recognised ASGI’s standing to act as a representative body for the collective interests affected by the conduct complained of.

The claim was examined under the rules on discrimination and, in particular, the concept of discriminatory harassment. The court referred to Italian Supreme Court judgment No. 14836/2023, according to which conduct may constitute discrimination even where it is not supported by a subjective intent to discriminate, if it produces an exclusionary or injurious effect for racial or ethnic reasons. The concept of harassment also covers attributing to members of a particular ethnic group, as such, a greater inclination to commit offences or unlawful behaviour.

Applying those principles, the court held that M.A.’s statements exceeded the limits of political and religious criticism. The reference to “Tunisians and Algerians who deal drugs and rape” did not identify specific individuals or particular events, but directly connected the commission of particularly serious offences with national origin. Likewise, the statements concerning Islam and the Islamic world were expressed in generalised terms and were capable of portraying Muslim and North African persons negatively.

The injurious capacity was increased by the medium used, the significant visibility of the defendant’s Facebook profile and the subsequent dissemination of the statements by press organisations and other social-media channels. The court also took into account M.A.’s public notoriety and previous institutional roles as factors capable of amplifying the dissemination of the content.

The publication of a further statement after service of the proceedings, although not independently included in the claim, was considered evidence of the persistence of the conduct. Overall, the statements published on 19 and 26 January 2026 were held capable of undermining the dignity of the persons belonging to the groups concerned and of creating an openly hostile, degrading and offensive environment towards them.

The court therefore ordered the removal of the two posts, if still available, within thirty days of notification of the judgment. It also ordered M.A. to pay 20.000 Euros as compensation for non-pecuniary damage, assessed equitably under Article 1226 of the Italian Civil Code, taking into account the defendant’s notoriety, public exposure, the medium used, the seriousness and repetition of the statements and their dissemination.

For restorative and preventive purposes, the court ordered publication of the operative part, once and at the defendant’s expense, in the newspaper Corriere della Sera and on M.A.’s Facebook page for sixty consecutive days, in a manner ensuring adequate visibility.

In conclusion, the judgment holds that political or religious criticism is limited by respect for human dignity and the prohibition of discrimination. Generalising criminal conduct or characteristics of inferiority to a group identified by ethnic, national or religious affiliation constitutes discriminatory harassment where it is objectively capable of creating an openly hostile and offensive environment. The judgment also attaches importance to the dissemination of content on social media and uses removal and publication of the operative part as complementary measures aimed at ending the conduct and preventing its repetition.

 

(Comment by Martina D'Onofrio)