Silencing the Truth-Teller or Italy’s War on Press Freedom

In the autumn of 2006, a 26-year-old Italian writer named Roberto Saviano received an anonymous letter that would forever change his life. The letter, delivered to local newspapers and prosecutors in Campania, detailed the Neapolitan Mafia’s plan to execute him for his book “Gomorrah,” a devastating exposé of the Camorra’s criminal empire. Nearly two decades later, Saviano’s case stands as a damning indictment of how democratic institutions can fail to protect fundamental freedoms, revealing a troubling alliance between state inaction and organized crime intimidation that has effectively silenced one of Italy’s most important voices.

The Writer Who Became Italy’s Most Hunted Man

Roberto Saviano’s ordeal began with the publication of “Gomorrah” in 2006, a work of investigative journalism that exposed the activities of one of the largest and most influential criminal groups in Europe Camorra and its involvement in everything from high fashion to toxic waste disposal. The book’s success—selling over 10 million copies worldwide and being translated into more than 50 languages—made Saviano a global symbol of anti-mafia resistance. However, this success came at an unprecedented personal cost that reveals the fundamental weakness of Italy’s commitment to protecting freedom of expression.

The anonymous threat letter received in 2006 was not merely a criminal communication; it was a declaration of war against investigative journalism itself. The letter, seen by The Observer, detailed a meeting held in a betting office in Casal di Principe where local Camorra bosses decreed that Saviano “must be punished” and that “the weapons that will be used for the execution have already been placed”.

What followed was not a robust defense of democratic values by the Italian state, but rather a pattern of minimal protection coupled with political persecution that effectively achieved what the Camorra had demanded. Since 2006, Saviano has lived under constant police protection, unable to spend more than a few nights in the same place, often sleeping in police barracks, and forbidden from taking simple walks or visiting the sea. This existence, which Saviano himself describes as being “at war with the world, at war with the Camorra, at war with myself,” represents a form of civil death that serves the interests of both organized crime and political forces seeking to silence criticism.

The Italian state’s response reveals a troubling pattern of providing just enough protection to avoid international criticism while simultaneously undermining the very person it claims to protect. Italy’s press freedom ranking dropped from 46th to 49th place between 2024 and 2025, with the organization specifically citing “threats from organized crime” and political interference as primary factors. This decline occurred despite—or perhaps because of—the state’s supposed commitment to protecting journalists like Saviano.

The most damning evidence of state complicity comes from the political persecution Saviano has faced from the very institutions meant to protect him. In 2018, when Saviano criticized then-Interior Minister Matteo Salvini’s immigration policies by calling him “minister of the underworld”, Salvini filed a defamation lawsuit that continues to this day. During the June 2025 court proceedings, Salvini testified that he found Saviano’s criticism “offensive” and demanded that “freedom of expression cannot become freedom of defamation”. This statement, coming from a government minister about a journalist living under state protection due to mafia threats, reveals the profound contradiction at the heart of Italy’s approach to press freedom.

Even more troubling is the case involving current Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, who in 2021 filed criminal defamation charges against Saviano for comments he made about her party’s immigration stance. In October 2023, a Rome court convicted Saviano and fined him, marking the first time in Italian history that a sitting Prime Minister had successfully prosecuted a journalist for political criticism. The European Parliament expressed concern about this case in a formal question, noting that it represented a “major blow to free expression” and questioning whether the prosecution was politically motivated.

This pattern of legal harassment, known as Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs), has become a preferred tool for silencing critics without resorting to the crude violence of the past. The organization specifically highlighted how Italy’s defamation laws are being weaponized by politicians to create a “chilling effect” on investigative journalism.

The Council of Europe has repeatedly warned Italy about this trend. In 2019, the organization stated that threats to withdraw Saviano’s police protection “equivalent to intimidation of state,” noting that such actions create an atmosphere where journalists must choose between their safety and their professional duties. This warning proved prescient, as subsequent years have seen an escalation in both legal and political pressure on Saviano and other investigative journalists.

The Mafia’s New Playbook: Legal Terror Over Bullets

The Camorra’s campaign against Roberto Saviano represents more than a personal vendetta; it exemplifies a sophisticated strategy to neutralize investigative journalism through a combination of direct threats, legal manipulation, and psychological warfare. The criminal organization’s success in effectively silencing Saviano without resorting to murder demonstrates an evolution in mafia tactics that poses an even greater threat to democratic institutions than traditional violence.

The 2008 threat that led to Saviano’s current predicament was not a spontaneous outburst but a calculated response to his September 2006 anti-mafia rally in Casal di Principe. During this event, Saviano committed what he later described as a “mortal sin” in the eyes of the Camorra: he named names publicly, calling out specific bosses and shouting “You don’t belong here! Get out”. According to mafia turncoats, this public challenge infuriated the bosses, who planned a spectacular assassination reminiscent of the 1992 Capaci massacre that killed anti-mafia magistrate Giovanni Falcone.

The planned attack, scheduled for Christmas Day 2008 on the Rome-Naples motorway, was designed to send a message that would resonate far beyond Saviano himself. Like the Falcone assassination, which used 300 kilograms of dynamite to create a crater in the highway, the Saviano murder was intended to demonstrate that no one—regardless of international fame or state protection—could challenge the Camorra with impunity. The fact that this attack was prevented does not diminish its significance; rather, it reveals how the mere threat of such violence has achieved the Camorra’s objectives more effectively than murder itself.

In July 2025, nearly 17 years after the initial threats, a Rome Court of Appeal finally convicted Camorra capo Roberto Bidognetti and the clan’s lawyer Michele Santonastaso for their role in threatening Saviano. The sentences—18 months for Bidognetti and 14 months for Santonastaso—were remarkably light, but the legal proceedings revealed the sophisticated nature of the intimidation campaign. The threats were delivered through a formal legal document read in court during a major Camorra trial, which accused Saviano and journalist Rosaria Capacchione of influencing judges through their reporting.

The psychological impact of this campaign cannot be overstated. In his recent interview with El País, Saviano revealed the profound personal cost of his resistance: “They stole my life, and I let them steal it”. He described how he could have protected himself by using fictitious names in “Gomorrah” or by accepting offers of asylum from Scandinavian countries, but chose instead to continue his fight against organized crime. This choice, while admirable, has resulted in what he describes as a “shielded life for 20 years” that has effectively removed him from normal society.

The Camorra’s strategy has proven devastatingly effective precisely because it avoids the international condemnation that would follow an actual assassination. By keeping Saviano alive but neutralized, the organization has achieved its primary objective—silencing a critic—while avoiding the martyrdom that his death would create.

This approach has had a chilling effect that extends far beyond Saviano himself. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, approximately 20 reporters in Italy currently live under police protection due to credible threats, with the vast majority facing intimidation related to their coverage of organized crime. The Italian organization Ossigeno per l’Informazione documented over 7,000 threats against journalists in less than two decades, with mafia-related threats comprising 8% of the total. While this percentage might seem small, the severity and persistence of these threats create a disproportionate impact on investigative journalism.

The Camorra’s success in neutralizing Saviano has emboldened other criminal organizations and political actors to adopt similar tactics. The use of legal harassment, economic pressure, and social isolation has become a preferred method for silencing critics across Italy.

Brussels’ Powerless Response to Democratic Backsliding

The European Union’s response to the systematic erosion of press freedom in Italy reveals a fundamental weakness in the bloc’s commitment to its own stated values. Despite numerous directives, reports, and expressions of concern, the EU has proven incapable of protecting journalists like Roberto Saviano from the combined assault of organized crime and state persecution. This failure exposes the hollowness of European integration when it comes to defending the democratic principles upon which the Union claims to be founded.

The EU’s legal framework for protecting freedom of expression appears robust on paper. Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights guarantees that everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including “freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas”. The European Media Freedom Act, proposed in 2022 and implemented in 2024, was specifically designed to protect media pluralism and editorial independence across member states. Yet these legal instruments have proven powerless to prevent the systematic persecution of journalists in Italy.

The European Parliament’s formal question regarding Saviano’s case, submitted in August 2023, highlighted the EU’s awareness of the problem but also its inability to address it effectively. The question, signed by MEPs from multiple political groups, expressed concern about RAI’s cancellation of Saviano’s program “Insider II” and noted the “risks of political influence and financial dependence on the Government” identified in the 2023 Rule of Law Report. However, this parliamentary intervention resulted in no concrete action to protect Saviano or prevent further erosion of media freedom in Italy.

The EU’s 2023 Rule of Law Report on Italy documented numerous concerns about press freedom, including the use of defamation laws to silence journalists and the political influence over public broadcasting. The report specifically noted that journalists who investigate organised crime and corruption are systematically threatened and sometimes subjected to physical violence. Despite these findings, the EU took no meaningful action to address these violations of its own fundamental principles.

The EU’s failure becomes even more stark when viewed against the backdrop of its broader political relationship with Italy. The Meloni government, which has systematically undermined press freedom through legal harassment and media manipulation, continues to receive EU funding and maintains its full membership privileges despite clear violations of European values. This tolerance for authoritarian behavior within the EU’s own borders undermines the bloc’s credibility when criticizing similar actions in non-member states.

The Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR), a European mechanism for monitoring press freedom violations, has documented numerous concerns about Italy but has been unable to prevent the continued deterioration of the situation. The organization’s reports on Saviano’s case and broader press freedom issues in Italy have been met with indifference from both Italian authorities and EU institutions, highlighting the toothless nature of European monitoring mechanisms.

Conclusion

The systematic silencing of Roberto Saviano represents more than an individual tragedy; it symbolizes the broader failure of democratic institutions to protect the fundamental freedoms upon which their legitimacy depends. The consequences of this failure extend far beyond Italy’s borders, offering a blueprint for authoritarian forces across Europe and beyond who seek to undermine press freedom while maintaining a veneer of democratic respectability.

The EU’s inability to protect Saviano has undermined the bloc’s credibility as a defender of democratic values. The Union’s failure to enforce its own directives and protect journalists within its borders has emboldened authoritarian forces across Europe who now understand that European institutions lack the will or capacity to defend press freedom effectively.

The price of words, as Saviano’s case demonstrates, has become prohibitively high in contemporary Europe. When journalists must choose between their safety and their professional duties, when states provide protection with one hand while wielding legal weapons with the other, and when international institutions prove incapable of defending their own stated principles, democracy itself becomes the ultimate casualty. Roberto Saviano’s ongoing ordeal serves as a warning that the foundations of European democracy are far more fragile than its leaders care to admit, and that the price of silence may ultimately be the loss of freedom itself.