If a politician does not keep their promises to their constituents, by not implementing what 'he had proposed to do during his term, not' offense point to it as a 'fool'.
is not, in fact, critical to the person but to its political-administrative. The Supreme Court annulled so 'with a court ruling of conviction for injury, the court Mirteto Poggio, a citizen during a public meeting, had interrupted the speech of the mayor called it 'ridiculous, fool'. Stoats Thus, in 4129, stressed the need to impose limits on the 'verbal continence' that a citizen has to maintain order not to offend a person and take offense. In this case, Mr. Franco, who is accused of insulting the mayor had called his jester, in a meeting convened by the same at the universities' local,''in order to clarify the misunderstandings which arose on an administrative choice'' . In the ruling of the Fifth Criminal Division, remembers that''the meeting had been determined by the climate of strong The political opposition has spread between the council and the inhabitants of a village because of the failure to authorize the mayor to close the road for the development of some cultural events.'' The mayor had called the meeting to give an explanation of his choices, and several people including the accused had offended him with words directed to the mayor as a person, but to its activities' policy. The Court overturned the decision saying the court with the need to specify the meaning of the difference that sometimes take a few sentences that are aimed at those who exercise public power on behalf of the people. Remembering stoats that:''The threshold of continence can 'be considered for if 'exceeded only if the context adopted by the author proves the fact as a pretext for aggression against the person, and actually proving that context, accomplished through an analysis, such as to justify the view exceeded the limit of continence and justify in the reform of the appeal in his favor, giving detailed account of what''
is not, in fact, critical to the person but to its political-administrative. The Supreme Court annulled so 'with a court ruling of conviction for injury, the court Mirteto Poggio, a citizen during a public meeting, had interrupted the speech of the mayor called it 'ridiculous, fool'. Stoats Thus, in 4129, stressed the need to impose limits on the 'verbal continence' that a citizen has to maintain order not to offend a person and take offense. In this case, Mr. Franco, who is accused of insulting the mayor had called his jester, in a meeting convened by the same at the universities' local,''in order to clarify the misunderstandings which arose on an administrative choice'' . In the ruling of the Fifth Criminal Division, remembers that''the meeting had been determined by the climate of strong The political opposition has spread between the council and the inhabitants of a village because of the failure to authorize the mayor to close the road for the development of some cultural events.'' The mayor had called the meeting to give an explanation of his choices, and several people including the accused had offended him with words directed to the mayor as a person, but to its activities' policy. The Court overturned the decision saying the court with the need to specify the meaning of the difference that sometimes take a few sentences that are aimed at those who exercise public power on behalf of the people. Remembering stoats that:''The threshold of continence can 'be considered for if 'exceeded only if the context adopted by the author proves the fact as a pretext for aggression against the person, and actually proving that context, accomplished through an analysis, such as to justify the view exceeded the limit of continence and justify in the reform of the appeal in his favor, giving detailed account of what''
Source: Reuters 28 January 2008
