Reasoning about post-truth and criminal law is not easy: the topic is elusive, in constant flux and raises delicate questions, among which it is difficult to move with balance. For this reason, what follows, rather than a contribution 'with a thesis', is an attempt to raise questions: we have no conclusive position to propose regarding the criminalisation of post-truth discourse, whether it is the right thing to do all things considered. Hence also the idea of dialogue, which is to be read as an outline of discussion, not as the offering of incontrovertible solutions. The dialogue structure of the text does not reflect the positions of either of the two authors (which is why the participants are not referred to by our names); it only serves to make visible the problematic rather than assertive nature of the text, as well as the discursive labour that led to its drafting. The answer to the question posed in the title, in short, we entrust to our vaniloquent characters, with whom we do not identify at all, and from whom, on the contrary, we disassociate ourselves, all things considered.
Ragionare di postverità e diritto penale non è semplice: il tema è sfuggente, in continuo divenire e pone questioni delicatissime, tra le quali è arduo muoversi con equilibrio. Per questa ragione, quello che segue, più che un contributo “a tesi”, è un tentativo di sollevare problemi: non abbiamo una posizione conclusiva da proporre in merito alla criminalizzazione del discorso postveritiero, se sia la cosa giusta da fare all things considered. Da qui anche l’idea del dialogo, che va letto come un abbozzo di discussione, non come l’offerta di incontrovertibili soluzioni. La struttura dialogica dello scritto non rispecchia le posizioni ora dell’uno ora dell’altro dei due autori (per questo i partecipanti non sono indicati coi nostri nomi); essa serve solo a rendere visibile la natura più problematica che assertiva del testo, nonché il travaglio discorsivo che lo ha condotto a stesura. La risposta alla domanda che sta nel titolo, insomma, la affidiamo ai nostri vaniloquenti personaggi, nei quali non ci identifichiamo affatto, e dai quali, anzi, tutto sommato ci dissociamo.
Criminalizzare la postverità? Un dialogo postvero
A. Vallini;
2022-01-01
Abstract
Reasoning about post-truth and criminal law is not easy: the topic is elusive, in constant flux and raises delicate questions, among which it is difficult to move with balance. For this reason, what follows, rather than a contribution 'with a thesis', is an attempt to raise questions: we have no conclusive position to propose regarding the criminalisation of post-truth discourse, whether it is the right thing to do all things considered. Hence also the idea of dialogue, which is to be read as an outline of discussion, not as the offering of incontrovertible solutions. The dialogue structure of the text does not reflect the positions of either of the two authors (which is why the participants are not referred to by our names); it only serves to make visible the problematic rather than assertive nature of the text, as well as the discursive labour that led to its drafting. The answer to the question posed in the title, in short, we entrust to our vaniloquent characters, with whom we do not identify at all, and from whom, on the contrary, we disassociate ourselves, all things considered.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
