Much sniggering has been done internationally (and here in Italy) at the recent judgement by the Corte di Cassazione (or supreme court) that grasping one’s ‘attributi’ in public is an offence punishable by a fine.

In a country where it’s a common superstition that grasping one’s ‘palle’ wards off bad-luck, this is bad news for many. Aside from putting many men (warding off bad-luck is anatomically reserved) on the wrong side of the law, the move calls into question whether the brightest legal minds in the country are being put to their best use. In 2006, according to statistics released by the courts 48,103 appeal cases remained open, while 44,511 were closed.

Venerdi, the weekly magazine from La Repubblica carries a lengthy article on some of the more surprising sentences issued in the area of insult. Various offences exist in Italy concerning insult. This was vividly brought to light when social activist Piero Ricca shouted ‘Buffone’ at Silvio Berlusconi in the halls of the Palace of Justice in Milan a number of years ago. Buffone roughly tranlsates as fool/clown, and Berlusconi took reasonable offence. And he did what any reasonably offended Italian, armed with a huge legal team, would do – took Ricca to court.

Now, here’s the rub. Were this a case brought in England, it seems to this monkey, it would have been for defamation, suggesting that the accusation of buffoonery had damaged his reputation (something that could never stand in court, given that his reputation is largely based precisely on buffoonery). In Italy, instead, it was a case to determine whether Mr B. had been insulted or not. In the heel of the hunt Berlusconi lost his case, as the Cassazione ruled that in the context (including the place of its utterance) in which the phrase had been shouted it was a ‘strong critique’ rather than an insult.

So place and intent become important to decide whether you’ve actually insulted someone. This leads to a complex system where one is constantly in danger of running foul of the law. Offence, after all, is in the eye – or ear – of the beholder.

A case in point. The Cassazione ruled that to call a normal citizen a ‘fascist’ was an insult. To label a politician a ‘fascist’ instead becomes a ‘ideological critique’. This leaves us in the interesting position that one could encounter a proud skinhead, brandishing a flag with flame and celtic cross (out to scare children and immigrants), and call him a fascist. He/she would no-doubt be quite proud of this label, but according to the logic of the court’s setence would be entitled to bring you to court for insulting his/her honour.

Buffoons – the lot of them.