Giving a voice to families left for years without child support is exactly the kind of journalism San Marino needs. Monday’s ruling, which convicted the director of the website that ran that campaign in first instance, doesn’t contradict that: it simply states that, by law, the names of the minor children should have been left out.
It all began a few years ago.
The website told the story of families left for years without child support. When the court ruled against the father, the site published the ruling — including the names of the minor children. According to the director, the ruling had been handed to him by the mothers themselves and had been read aloud during a hearing open to the public.
Then came the complaint.
In 2023, two journalists reported the case to the judiciary.
A long process followed. The director says the case was dismissed twice, both times overturned, and involved roughly ten magistrates, ultimately leading to a criminal decree of conviction — a sentence issued without a trial, which he challenged by bringing the case to court.
Monday’s ruling.
The judge found him guilty of violating the rule that prohibits publishing names or details that would make a minor involved in criminal proceedings identifiable.
The sentence is a suspended fine. It is a first-instance ruling, therefore not final, and can be appealed.
In the same hearing, the director was acquitted, for lack of sufficient evidence, of defaming one of the two journalists, whom he had described in an article as having a “criminal record.”
His response.
The director has already responded: he is waiting for the reasoning behind the ruling before deciding whether to appeal.
His argument is that the rule applied is meant to protect the confidentiality of investigations, whereas he published a ruling that had been read out in open court, at the families’ own request, without harming anyone.
And he stands by the outcome: those families, he says, got what they were owed partly thanks to the attention of the Sammarinese public.
Two things need to be held together here.
The first: giving a voice to those left behind is precisely the job of local journalism.
In a country where many matters get quietly settled behind closed doors, a campaign that delivers results deserves respect, not suspicion.
The second: Sammarinese law prohibits identifying a minor involved, in any capacity, in legal proceedings.
That prohibition applies even when the hearing is public, and even when it is the parents themselves who request it, because the protection belongs to the children, not to those who speak on their behalf. Which rule should have applied is for the appeal to decide. On the principle itself, there is little room for debate.
Until a final ruling is issued, the presumption of innocence applies to the director, as it does to anyone.
The takeaway, meanwhile, is simple: a family’s story can be told without handing the public the names of its children — and indeed, it must be.
A reminder that applies to every newsroom in San Marino, this one included.
