The Agcom regulation
Be careful what you say and what you write. And maybe even what you think. Not just if you are journalists, also because, thanks to social networks, they are all a little’ journalists and everyone can say what they like.

Yesterday the communications guarantor, Agcom, has drawn an inviolable limit beyond which one sinks into hate speech. Anyone who goes astray is reported and then fined. Up to this point we all agree. The problem is: what are the words of hate? Because at this point personal sensitivity comes into play and therefore, at least to some extent, also subjectivity.
The words of hate – explains Agcom – they target specific targets (like women, homosexuals, immigrants, i rom, people of color). Words that would leverage stereotypes and clichés. But news content that can lead to "dangerous generalizations" also ends up in the guarantor's sights.. And the question becomes more and more complicated. Let's take a practical example: Monday in Mirandola a young Moroccan set fire to the headquarters of the traffic police, killing two people and wounding twenty others. I can say he is Moroccan? Or am I sowing hatred towards the people of North Africa? And if, as unfortunately has happened many times, someone makes a massacre in the name of Allah, we can write it or we must keep it silent so as not to disturb the sensitivity of the people 1,8 billions of Muslims in the world? Because those are not words of hate, they are words that speak of hatred.
Hatred of others, not of the writer. Otherwise we need to stop talking and throw them away 5 pillars of journalism, the questions: «Chi? What? When? Dove? Why?». «Chi», if it is a foreigner, it's better not to say it. "Why", if there are political and religious issues at stake, better to avoid making it explicit. Never let anyone generalize and think, for example, that all Muslims are suicide bombers or that all gypsies are pickpockets. There's no need for someone to come along and cut off our tongues, We Westerners specialize in the art of cutting it ourselves. Also because who is the referee who decides what can be said and what cannot? In part Agcom itself, which undertakes to monitor the flow of information. But check everything, from provincial newspapers to national TV via Facebook and Twitter, it is humanly and technically impossible. Therefore the guarantor will also rely on the complaints of representative associations and organizations. And it is obvious that the association that defends nomads will see an attack on nomads everywhere. Because that's his job. Thus the Agcom regulation risks becoming a dangerous trap that cages the word even further in the narrow confines of the religion of political correctness.
source – http://m.ilgiornale.it/news/2019/05/24/con-la-scusa-dellodio-ci-imbavagliano/1700352/