by Alessandro Amicarelli — In its ruling of 16 June 2025 in civil case no. 7879/2023, Section II of the Florence Tribunal ruled against the Italian Association of Victims of Cults (AIVS) for actions carried out online targeting the Soka Gakkai Buddhist Institute, based in Florence.
What led to this ruling?
In June 2023, the Italian Buddhist Institute Soka Gakkai (IBISG) initiated proceedings under Article 2043 of the Civil Code before the Second Civil Section of the Florence Tribunal. They sought damages — both financial and reputational — for defamatory and contemptuous behaviour by the AIVS and its legal representatives, Antonio Occhiello and Francesco Brunori.
The claim was based on a series of posts on AIVS's Facebook page, which labelled Soka Gakkai a “cult” and accused it of illicitly obtaining funds via the 8×1000 scheme, allegedly through collusion with then Prime Minister Matteo Renzi. It also cited a YouTube video inciting viewers to burn the “Gohonzon”, a sacred scroll revered by the Institute, and dismissing it as a “bad luck charm”.
A gohonzon inscribed by Nichiren just before his death in 1280. Source Wikimedia
The specific allegations included:
- Contempt towards the Gohonzon via video (pp. 4–5)
- Criticism of Law no. 130/2016, described as “scandalous” and passed “in just 90 days” with Renzi’s support (p. 7)
- Lack of transparency over the use of 8×1000 funds (p. 7)
- Repeated labelling of Soka Gakkai as a “cult” using “coercive methods” (pp. 6–7)
- Referring to the group as a “mafia-style, Masonic coercive organisation” and “a true P2*” (p. 8)
(*P2 was a masonic lodge that caused scandal in Italy in the 1990's).
The Tribunal ruled that statements regarding the alleged fast-tracking of Law no. 130/2016, the absence of fund reporting, and repeated use of the term “cult” were defamatory.
The video regarding the Gohonzon was deemed a contemptuous act toward a religious symbol, further damaging the group’s reputation.
The defence of critical commentary was rejected. According to Article 51 of the Criminal Code and precedent Cassation Court no. 2357/2018, the judge emphasised three necessary criteria for its application:
- Genuine public interest in the information shared
- A formally and substantively coherent presentation
- Alignment between the narrative and factual reality
The AIVS posts failed both the tests of truthfulness and restraint (pp. 9–11).
Non-material damages were assessed at €35,247, based on the moderate severity of the defamation and the fact it was published on a Facebook page with over 3,600 likes.
However, the claim for material damages relating to the 8×1000 fund was dismissed due to a lack of evidence demonstrating a direct link between the criticism and any reduction in contributions.
The defendants were held jointly liable for payment of damages, ordered to remove the defamatory content, and required to publish the full judgment on the AIVS Facebook page. Legal costs were mutually waived (i.e. equally shared between the parties).
- The ruling reaffirmed the strict multi-layered criteria required to justify public criticism:
- A concrete public interest in information dissemination
- Measured tone, devoid of gratuitous or harmful language
- Demonstrable alignment between stated facts and documented reality.
Key points from the judge’s reasoning included:
- A detailed review of the historical and legislative pathway of Law no. 130/2016, countering claims of “corrupt speed” (pp. 11–12)
-Emphasis that public interest does not exempt one from the duty of factual accuracy and respectful reporting
-Prudence in granting financial loss damages to hypothetical shifts in public opinion
This ruling offers an exemplary model for striking a balance between protecting reputation and safeguarding free expression. It aligns with well-established principles in various European courts that demand rigorous scrutiny when weighing reputation against freedom of the press.
As FOB, we are highly satisfied with the Florence Tribunal's judgement. It reflects a conscientious approach to the issue of so-called fake news, particularly prevalent among Italian and international anti-cult groups. It also underscores the need to temper the right of criticism, which some groups misuse as a licence to hurl insults at will, ignoring the clearly defined limits of rights and freedoms in a democratic society.
This ruling will undoubtedly serve as a key reference for future legal disputes. We are confident that it lays the groundwork for further judgments against other anti-cult groups that openly insult individuals and organisations they oppose.
Moreover, this decision aligns with other rulings from institutions and courts across Europe such as those involving the private organisation FECRIS and the government agency MIVILUDES. By condemning use of the term “cult” as inherently discriminatory, the Florence judge demonstrates attentiveness to vital institutional and legal precedents. It reinforces the expectation that anti-cult organisations respect existing legislation also in light with the Strasbourg Court case law, such as the European Court of Human Rights judgment in case Tonchev and others v. Bulgaria, issued on 13 December 2022.
