AGCOM and Media Trials: Reconstituting the Committee for TV and Social Media

1. The Fact

   According to reports by Prima Comunicazione and Articolo21, the AGCOM Council has approved the reconstitution of the Committee tasked with monitoring compliance with the Self-regulation Code on media and judicial proceedings, originally signed in 2009.

   This initiative does not stem from a single criminal trial, but is part of an administrative regulatory and oversight procedure aimed at updating protections for suspects and defendants. The main innovation lies in extending this monitoring beyond traditional TV broadcasters to digital professionals such as vloggers and podcasters, provided their activity has a significant impact on public opinion.

   The goal is to prevent premature reputational damage and punitive effects prior to the conclusion of judicial proceedings.

2. 

   The Rules in Play

   The legal framework is based on the Italian Constitution, specifically Article 21 on freedom of expression and the press, and Article 27, paragraph 2, on the presumption of innocence. At a supranational level, Directive (EU) 2016/343 requires Member States to ensure that public authorities do not refer to a suspect as guilty before conviction.

   This principle was transposed into Italian law by Legislative Decree No. 188/2021, which limits the dissemination of non-essential procedural details. Finally, the Consolidated Law on Audiovisual Media Services (TUSMA) grants AGCOM the power to sanction broadcasters that violate the duty of objectivity and respect for human dignity.

3. What Jurisprudence Says

   Settled case law from the Court of Cassation has established the so-called Journalist's Decalogue, stating that the exercise of the right to report is legitimate only if three cumulative requirements are met: objective truth (or diligent verification of the news), pertinence (public interest or social utility of the information), and continence (civil, measured, and non-excessive presentation).

   Supreme Court rulings clarify that the presumption of innocence does not prevent reporting on investigative facts, but prohibits presenting them in a suggestive or accusatory manner. European courts have also reiterated that public authorities must not fuel public prejudice through premature statements to the media.

5. Analysis drafted and verified with edit.legal

   To verify the provisions cited in this article, we used edit.legal. Test our legal AI on official sources and apply it to your own matters.

   Try edit.legal AI

8. What it Teaches Professionals

   1. Digital Monitoring: Legal counsel must monitor not only traditional newspapers but also social media platforms to promptly detect violations of the presumption of innocence.

   2. Media Qualification: It is essential to analyze whether the digital creator operates with editorial purpose or in a professional capacity to invoke TUSMA protections.

   3. Immediacy of Correction: Requesting an immediate correction or removal is often more effective in mitigating reputational damage than relying solely on post-hoc sanctions.

   4. Prudent Language: Communication professionals should be advised to consistently use the conditional mood and accurately specify the exact procedural stage.

References: Articolo 21 Costituzione ItalianaArticolo 27 Costituzione ItalianaDirettiva (UE) 2016/343D.Lgs. 188/2021D.Lgs. 208/2021 (TUSMA)Codice di autoregolamentazione media e procedimenti giudiziari 2009

Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa·ICAMUpdated 11 June 2026Content drafted with AI support and subject to editorial source checks. Despite these controls, inaccuracies may remain: reports and rectification requests are welcome. Report a correction