I see that the same journalists who are shaming Heater Parisi for an alleged affair with Maradona are getting lost in pseudofeminist campaigns concerning a teacher lynched (in the way women lynch) by other women. It is very interesting that the thing is classified as "revenge porn", when the lynching took place by the director and her colleagues.

Because the chain of responsibility is much longer than the so-called “revenge porn”: behind it there is the whole society of the horrible Italian province. Let's reconstruct the phases.

phase	happenings	comment
1	boyfriend distributes sexy videos of girlfriend to friends	Revenge porn.
2	one of the boyfriend's friends shows it to his wife	How do we catalog this?
3	the wife shows it to the headmistress of the school	How do we catalog this?
4	the director sets up a public trial where "she shames the slut"	How do we catalog this?
5	female stoning forces the girl to sign a resignation letter (otherwise what?)	How do we catalog this?
6	Here comes the indignation of the "righteous" who in the meantime stop making articles on the imaginary history between Maradona and Ether Parisi	Are they really the right ones?

First, let's try to understand what "female stoning" is. There are two types of stoning. The male one is done by throwing stones at the victim, who is killed by the impact. The female one is done by exploiting a mechanism of incomplete resilience of the victim, and usually verbal tools are used. There is little difference between the two in terms of suffering, but the difference is that the victim "survives" the trial.

That said, I can only identify "revenge porn" in "1", in the first step. The rest are arbitrary decisions of people.

Let's take step 2: there is no revenge going on. Showing the pictures to his wife wasn't necessary, it wasn't revenge (unless he was also an ex?), And so it's a mere individual decision of that gentleman. Maybe he meant to help his friend in his revenge? Ok, so step 2 is in turn "group revenge porn".

Let's go to step 3: the wife goes to talk to the head teacher. Here the revenge porn discourse disappears. What did the wife of the ex-boyfriend's friend have to take revenge on? Why did you decide that the headmistress should be informed? According to her, she was moved by sacred indignation at the fact that "a teacher did those things".

I'm sorry, but this is not attributable to "revenge porn". This is called "character assassination".

Let's go to the next step, step number 4. At a certain point, hearing the story, the director sets up a kind of process in which she shows all her colleagues the videos of the victim. This didn't have to happen, and it's not an inevitable physical consequence. He could have simply ignored it. But he decides to do it. It's not character assassination. It's not revenge porn.

It is sadism. Exercise of power for the sole purpose of procuring lust.

Power is a form of pleasure. In Sicily they say that commanding is better than fucking.
Condemning excites. So I put it in the category "sadistic director wants to enjoy".

Now we come to the colleagues: why didn't they rebel? One would think that all these women knew well that "teachers have sex too". And so what sense does it make for all these women to so rage against their colleague, if they know very well that they commit the same "terrible sins" with their boyfriends that would make them unworthy of "not even cleaning the toilets you will work".

There are two answers I see:

• the vast majority of marriages today are "white" marriages. Especially in the province. Co-workers have NOT had sex for years, and therefore feel different from her doing it.

• they share with the director the sadistic pleasure of torturing someone else, and now they are given the power to do so.

Now let's go to step five: What kind of threats did the director use?

So we know that at some point he asked the girl to sign a letter of resignation, and the girl did. But the question is: otherwise what? What would they do if she didn't sign? My personal idea is that it's one of those jobs where they have backdated resignation letters signed at the door. But I have no proof.

So, let's get to the point: "otherwise what"?

For this threat to make sense, punitive tools of some kind must exist. Which would be completely illegal, since possessing those images itself is a crime .

There are therefore completely arbitrary punitive procedures, without any control, which allow a manager to cause harm to an employee without controls, supervision, without having to justify. Kindergarten managers, that is, have absolute power of some kind .

Since I don't think this is true, especially if the girl has the mentality to get in the way of lawyers, the logical answer is only one: the girl has been threatened with further dissemination of the images. To be "disgusted" even more '.

We can then fill our table much better:

phase	happenings	comment
1	boyfriend distributes sexy videos of girlfriend to friends	Revenge porn.
2	one of the boyfriend's friends shows it to his wife	Revenge porn group
3	the wife shows it to the headmistress of the school	Character assassination.
4	the director sets up a public trial where "she shames the slut"	Sadistic lust of the director.
5	female stoning forces the girl to sign a resignation letter (otherwise what?)	Sadistic lust of colleagues, plus matrimonial catastrophe.
6	Here comes the indignation of the "righteous" who in the meantime stop making articles on the imaginary history between Maradona and Ether Parisi	Are they really the right ones?

The “6” remains.

And here we begin to say things as they are: when we talk about the newspapers that report and "denounce" the horrible story, are we talking about the same journalists who do this?

Because reporters have to shut up about the shaming.

• if the girl had been a possible lover of Berlusconi, the dismissal would have been lawful. See under Minetti, but also Carfagna, but also Ruby: at the time she was a minor, right? But it ended up in the papers.

• if it is a male, the sputtanazione is lawful. (see under "gay orgy in Brussels").

• in general, if we are dealing with a political enemy, the sputtanazione is legitimate.

• if it is the annoying one on duty, the scamming is lawful. See under Heater Parisi. And if a child gets involved, who cares?

• if you're doing yet another good hoplites crusade, then everything is fine.

How courageously do journalists denounce revenge porn with a scandalized air, when it would be enough for the girl to say she was a fascist to get an applause to the director who fired her? What are the values ​​of a class of pigs without conscience, who would have no problem doing the same with their political enemy of the day, to dismiss him (instead of the post of elementary teacher) from the post of, what do I know, mayor, minister or head of government?

Can those who publish articles defend the “cancel culture”, which is nothing else a summary and public process like the one that the director has set up, really cry out to scandal? Can they really cry scandal if the director says “you don't even work here anymore to clean the toilets”, the same ones who made a director who turned out to be innocent lose contracts, with a furious press campaign? Who in Italian journalism can judge: those who praise the Jene for ruining the lives of people who then turn out to be innocent?

The only one who can judge the others in this story here is the victim. All the others, JOURNALISTS IN PRIMIS, just have to keep quiet, because not only their pata-crusades have no positive effect, but they are part of the problem .

Indeed, to tell the truth, to say it all:

Journalism invented revenge porn. But they call it "gossip".

And who's the problem, can't be the solution.