Zucchero will have to compensate his ex-friend: “He defamed him in a book”

The sentence of the civil court of Massa: the singer-songwriter will have to pay 37 thousand euros to the man he had defined as a “no good, womanizer and do-nothing”

The civil court of Massa has convicted of defamation Zucchero Fornaciari forcing him to compensate the moral damages to a former friend defined, in his autobiographical book “The sound of Sunday. The novel of my life” (Mondadori, 2011), a bad guy, womanizer and do-nothing: the rock star will have to pay him 37 thousand EUR. According to the judge Domenico Provenzano, reports the “Corriere Fiorentino” giving the news of the sentence, the expressions used in the autobiography are “damaging to the reputation” and have “compromised the social and family relationships of the offended party, whose relationship with his spouse have significantly deteriorated”.

For Adelmo Fornaciari, real name of the popular singer-songwriter, those expressions were functional to the “narrative plot”. But for the judge these are “offensive expressions which, unlike what the singer claims, are not consistent” with the plot of the story, and have “the only effect of bringing discredit” to the ex-friend.

It all started with the publication of the autobiography by Zucchero Sugar Fornaciari. The passionate account of those fragments of life with childhood in Roncocesi, in the Emilian countryside, the first performances punctuated by the blues in the Versilia dance halls and the difficulties of the young “foreigner” who spoke Emilian had been around the web and had rebounded on newspapers and on TV. So the book ended up under the singer-songwriter’s ex-friend’s tree. It was her daughter who gave it to him for a Christmas 8 years ago knowing of the common past between the two. “Unfortunately, reading the novel caused discomfort and discomfort in my client’s family”, lawyer Alessandro Fontana explained to “Corriere Fiorentino”, who filed the complaint with his colleague Catia Buratti. “Eight years later, the court has established that some expressions referred unequivocally to him, damaging his reputation”.

Those expressions, according to Judge Provenzano are “objectively disparaging (inducing in the reader a judgment of natural reprehensibleness about conduct of this kind) regardless of the ironic tone and colloquial language with which the events narrated in the text are reported; tone – concludes the judge – which in itself does not make the facts and judgments described and expressed untrue and/or unbelievable”.