THE RIGHT TO INSULT AND THE PROHIBITION OF BEING CRITICIZED

We don't want to compare an irrelevant nonsense, such is a son who mistreats his mother, compared to a priest who after a polemical debate is sued by an LGBT activist and for whom, to the logical rigor of he who cannot remain silent, life imprisonment and maximum security regime pursuant to art. should be requested. 41-bis, subject to excommunication and dismissal from the clerical state?

- Church news -

.

Author
Ivano Liguori, Ofm. Cap.

.

PDF print format article

.

In the age of culture hip-hop e, in particular, in music rap we know a methodology for making fun of and mocking the opponent made of songs, of rhymes and lyrics that are passed away social. We're talking about “Dissing”, abbreviation of the English term “disrespecting” (disrespect).

(© The Mirror, 2014)

Between the serious and the facetious, the Dissing it stands between play and provocation, a skirmish between world abilities rap and cultural quips social. Often, however, the "Dissing” reveals itself as a means of making people talk about themselves, to advertise or advertise, to escape from anonymity and make yourself known; to free themselves from the label of "loser" and to enter the Olympus of those who count. Many "Dissing” have brought undeniable advantages in terms of visibility and notoriety to people around the world rap e pop, to the point of also touching other aspects of public life, so we also witnessed “Dissing” between political exponents or from the world of television and cinema.

Even in the world of digital Catholicism, let's include those who mock and invective Modus Operandi usual to attack those who are not to his liking and who do not align with his personal vision of the Catholic world. And "Dissing” much more malevolent and radical that has lost the note of playfulness and skirmish between equals (whose value and respect is recognised) to clothe itself with all that perversity and insolence of the worst clerical resentment which should be promptly removed, under penalty of being seriously entangled.

There is a now sadly well-known character «whose name it is merciful and wise to keep silent» (cf.. The Name of The rose, 1986), because you just need to read it to recognize it: aggressive language, judgments without appeal, labels handed out generously to anyone who doesn't fit his mold. It is a subject that cannot be kept silent, or as Saint Augustine states in his Letter 23 the 392: I can not remain silent (I can't keep silent). This is why he writes a lot, always hits, it spares no one: priests, bishops, cardinals, but above all journalists. Anything can become a target. Every verbal attack is justified in the same way: frankness, justice, freedom of speech, defense of the faith. There is no measure, nor respect for the opponent, nor distinction between criticism and insult: everything flows into the same register, that of systematic and repeated aggression.

It's not an excess, but a method. Language is no longer useful for understanding reality, but to reduce it and bend it: a word replaces an argument, a label an analysis, a liquid formula a person. It requires no expertise or verification, but only safety and repetition. And this is precisely why it works in the digital ecosystem: there speed matters more than precision and impact more than truth.

This language doesn't build anything: does not clarify, does not distinguish, it doesn't open spaces, but it simplifies and closes, transforming reality into a sequence of targets. More than what he says, this character is recognizable by what he avoids: the real comparison. And here the decisive point emerges: does not tolerate being contradicted. You don't need an attack, a documented denial or calm criticism is enough. At that point everything changes. Whoever insulted until a moment ago presents himself as a victim; those who delegitimized everyone report being delegitimized; those who spoke without limits now demand protection. The reversal is immediate and systematic.

You can see it clearly even when facts enter into the discussion, for example when he accuses and incites third parties to accuse a priest dedicated to journalistic activity of having been sued years ago for defamation by an LGBT activist, However, the matter is awaiting trial at the appeal court. At the same time, But, is capable of tearing his clothes and declaring himself highly aggrieved if someone replies to him that in a provision of the Supreme Court of Cassation, relating to a dispute he brought against his own parents, dragged to the final stage of trial - after having lost at first instance and on appeal -, the judge of legitimacy writes:

"there is no evidence of the alleged mistreatment suffered by the complainant while a trial is underway for the same crime against him for actions committed against his mother" (cf.. pag. 3, see who).

However, it may be that for the one who cannot remain silent, a lawsuit brought by an LGBT activist for defamation in the press and currently awaiting the appeal judgment, is much more serious than a judge of cassation who writes in an order that a trial is underway against him for mistreatment of his mother. We don't want to compare an irrelevant nonsense, such is a son who mistreats his mother, compared to a priest who after a polemical debate is sued by an LGBT activist and for whom, to the logical rigor of the one who cannot remain silent and of the unfortunate people who give him credence, life imprisonment and ex-maximum security regime should be requested art. 41-bis, subject to excommunication and dismissal from the clerical state?

It's always the same pattern depicted in a previous article dedicated to the psychology of the malignant narcissist (see who): those who attack pretend to appear as victims. As long as the word proceeds in only one direction, the system holds up, as long as reciprocity does not take over, because you can strike a word, but don't be put, with the same word, in the face of its own evident inconsistencies. So people attack and then report having been attacked; he exposes himself and then complains about being exposed; you strike and then you invoke protection; you declare that you have been mistreated by your mother and you find yourself before a judge who, far from falling into the trap of this inversion, he writes in an order that proceedings are underway against his son, as it was he who mistreated his mother and not vice versa. Ordinary inconsistency? No, it is a system perfectly coherent in its logic: absolute freedom for oneself, absolute limit for others.

When this dynamic is put to the test, the comparison disappears. We don't go into the merits, the arguments are not answered: you change plan. And so the question is no longer what is true or false, but who has the right to speak. The truth is not refuted: it is circumvented and manipulated if necessary. This shift has a definite effect: brings attention from the content to the person. It doesn't matter what is said, but who says; not the correctness of an argument, but the legitimacy of those who pronounce it. The discourse thus becomes impervious to any verification.

At this point a further step is taken. We are no longer limited to the word: reports are used, complaints and formal actions aimed at platforms or other subjects, not to protect a right that is actually violated, but to hit the interlocutor in any way. Tools created to guarantee protection are thus bent to a different function: do not clarify, but discourage; don't defend, but create pressure; do not ascertain, but wear out through reiteration. You don't have to be right: it is sufficient to activate the mechanism. The mere fact of forcing the other to defend himself already produces a result: time taken away, energy consumed, continuous pressure.

We are no longer in the midst of controversy, but in that of mafia-type intimidating dynamics. The confrontation is replaced by the attempt to prevent it, the response from pressure, the dialectic circumvented rather than addressed. At this level it becomes clear that we are not faced with someone who defends the faith, but to someone who uses religious language as a violent instrument of personal affirmation. I'm not interested in clarifying, but prevail; do not convince, but take up space; do not seek the truth, but control the narrative.

This also produces a broader effect. Who reads, especially if less trained, tends to internalize the schema: if those who speak like this are not contradicted, then he must be right; if he uses absolute tones, then he has certainties; if he attacks everyone, then he defends something. This is how an aggressive dynamic transforms into apparent authority: not because it is founded, but because it is continuous. The insult becomes ordinary language, the delegitimization method, the conflict system. Everything is based on simple logic: what is permissible for oneself is not permissible for others. E, as was written in these columns in an article already referred to before (see who), the Ecclesiastical Authority has its own responsibilities in this sense for never having taken action to protect those weak and fragile subjects - including certain priests - who listen to the falsehoods of similar characters, thinking that everything could resolve itself over time by simply ignoring the problem, instead of facing it and nipping it in the bud with all the legitimate means at our disposal.

The paradox is evident: those who accuse everyone because they cannot remain silent, does not accept being contradicted, he who judges everyone does not accept being judged, those who claim to tell the truth do not accept that truth being verified. Eventually, no comparison is sought, but a monopoly: don't argue, but to establish who can speak without being contradicted. Freedom of speech is thus reduced to its poorest form: always talk, never answer. It is not a defense of the faith, it's his caricature, to the extent that the subject who embodies it is sadly caricatured, which is not so much a personal name, which it also has, but a sad paradigm of the worst that they can offer social media.

Sanluri, 22 April 2026

.

.

The books of Ivano Liguori, to access the book shop click on the cover

.

.

.

______________________

Dear Readers,
this magazine requires management costs that we have always faced only with your free offers. Those who wish to support our apostolic work can send us their contribution through the convenient and safe way PayPal by clicking below:

Or if you prefer you can use our
Bank account in the name of:
Editions The island of Patmos

n Agency. 59 From Rome – Vatican
Iban code:
IT74R0503403259000000301118
For international bank transfers:
Codice SWIFT:
BAPPIT21D21

If you make a bank transfer, send an email to the editorial staff, the bank does not provide your email and we will not be able to send you a thank you message:
isoladipatmos@gmail.com

We thank you for the support you wish to offer to our apostolic service.

The Fathers of the Island of Patmos

.

.

.