This blog has already spent some time dealing with the paternalistic Italian laws that govern what you can, and can’t say. We’ll remind readers that, in a political context, one is entitled to call Silvio Berlusconi a buffoon but to suggest it in general may be another kettle of slanderous fish (although, one has to presume that a court would have to take his recent ‘suntanned’ comments about Barack Obama, and his game of cuckoo with Angela Merkel into consideration before making a ruling).

The guardians of free speech in Italy’s Court of Cassation came to another landmark ruling this week, when they ruled that it was indeed offensive to compare a woman to Monica Lewinsky. A Judge in a lower court had dismissed the case, brought before the courts  by a woman from Puglia  who, during a civil case, had been described by the accused – a lawyer – as having ‘uterine ramblings, of a lewinskyian nature’. The case went to appeal where the lawyer was forced to pay legal costs, and then this week to its final stage where it became a precedent: to liken a woman to Monica Lewinsky is defamation. 

It’s unclear at the moment as to whether describing a woman as having ‘uterine ramblings’ is also defamation.

This monkey’s sympathy goes to the woman who brought the case, but one can’t help but wonder whether ruling on such a case is the best use of any court’s time? It seems, at the end of the day, as insignificant and a waste of public money as the original case brought by Ken Starr.  A sexist lawyer certainly deserves some kind of a response, but one would think that ridicule and scorn from decent individuals would have been enough – or an official reprimand from his professional body for unbecoming conduct. Then again, scorn and ridicule are dangerous enough practices, when the judges are out and about.