Operating a blog does not automatically entail criminal liability for any content published by third parties. However, where the administrator becomes aware of defamatory content and knowingly allows it to remain available and to continue circulating, such conduct may give rise to criminal liability.

This is the principle emerging from Judgment No. 27079/2026 of the Fifth Criminal Division of the Supreme Court of Cassation, which upheld the conviction of a blogger for aggravated defamation in conjunction with the offence of stalking.

The case concerned the publication, on a blog administered by the defendant, of eleven articles relating to events concerning the management of a psychiatric hospital. The content had been published anonymously, but bore the logo of an association chaired by the blog administrator and displayed elements of continuity with articles previously published in a periodical of which the defendant was editor.

In challenging his conviction, the appellant argued, inter alia, that authorship of the articles had been attributed to him solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence, without any technical investigation into the IP address from which the content had been published. He also disputed the possibility of extending to a blog administrator the liability regime laid down by Article 57 of the Italian Criminal Code for the editor of a periodical publication.

The Supreme Court rejected those arguments.

As regards the first issue, the Court held that attribution of the content could also be established on the basis of multiple converging logical and factual elements, without it necessarily being essential to identify, through technical means, the IP address used for publication. The decision is consistent with previous case law according to which, in cases of online defamation, the author may be identified on the basis of a precise and consistent body of circumstantial evidence, without a technical investigation of the relevant IP address invariably constituting an indispensable prerequisite.

As regards the position of the blog administrator, the Court confirmed that Article 57 of the Italian Criminal Code does not automatically apply to blogs or, more generally, to digital means used for the expression and dissemination of ideas that do not qualify as online journalistic publications.

The exclusion of that specific form of liability does not, however, mean that the administrator is necessarily exempt from criminal liability arising from content hosted on his or her website.

According to the case law cited by the Supreme Court, a blogger may be held directly liable for aggravated defamation where, after becoming aware of defamatory material published on the website, he or she fails to remove it promptly. Knowingly allowing such content to remain available may be regarded as an endorsement of its continued dissemination and as a contribution to the continuing harm caused to the reputation of the person concerned.

The principle is particularly significant because it draws a clear distinction between two situations: on the one hand, the mere ownership or administration of an online space, which does not in itself give rise to liability for every item of content published by third parties; and, on the other hand, a conscious decision to keep harmful content accessible after becoming aware of it, which may amount to participation in the defamatory conduct.

The judgment also addresses the relationship between aggravated defamation and stalking. The Supreme Court reiterated that the two offences may coexist, since they protect different legal interests and may both arise from the same course of conduct where the repeated dissemination of denigrating content also displays the characteristics of harassment required under Article 612-bis of the Italian Criminal Code.

There is, however, no automatic rule to this effect. Depending on the specific features of the conduct at issue, the same body of case law has identified situations in which the repeated publication of offensive content amounted solely to stalking, and others in which only the offence of defamation was established.

The judgment therefore also provides important practical guidance for administrators of blogs, websites, forums and other digital spaces open to user-generated content: the relevant risk is not limited to the person who originally creates the unlawful content, but may extend to a person who, after acquiring actual knowledge of its defamatory nature, knowingly allows it to remain accessible and to continue circulating.

The handling of reports and takedown requests therefore assumes particular importance. Internal procedures capable of documenting the receipt of complaints, the timely assessment of reported content and the resulting decisions as to whether such content should remain available or be removed may constitute an essential safeguard for managing the legal risks associated with content published online.