SECOND PRESS RELEASE

Introduction: Where we left off After the events involving one of our reporters M. last February, we ended our first statement with these words: “In the coming months, we will need the support of the entire community that believes in this project.” Eight months have passed since then. During this time, we have continued our work through difficulties, changes and new phases of growth, both personally and professionally. Today, we are facing a challenge that we cannot overcome alone, and for which we need the support of our entire community. Eight months ago, the journey to the demonstration in support of Askatasuna on 31 January in Turin turned, for one of us, into detention, a search, nine hours in a cell at police headquarters and a ban from returning to the city until 2028 — a measure that remains in force today. All of this happened on the basis of an alleged violation of an ordinance signed on 29 January and “published” on the 30th, which we were unaware of. The ordinance prohibited the possession of certain objects “at the locations and on the occasion of the demonstration” on 31 January. M., together with four other people, was instead seven kilometres away from the demonstration site, four hours before it was due to begin, and had not taken part in any event or action. That day forced us to stop and confront a reality that, until then, we had only documented. Alongside many others, M. experienced first-hand what it means to be identified, searched, detained and deprived of your freedom for hours while simply trying to document what is happening or exercise your right to demonstrate. As Chrono, we discovered how quickly a project built through the voluntary work of a handful of young people can find itself exposed to consequences that go far beyond its material means, forcing us to reconsider some of the ways we work. In the months that followed, we had to deal with the consequences of all this while continuing, at the same time, to produce independent information. This is where we now want to start again. Not simply to return to what happened eight months ago, but to explain what has happened since then, the legal proceedings, the rulings, and why today we are asking for the support of the community that has accompanied us this far. What happened? Following the detention and the subsequent exclusion order, four of the five people involved, including M., decided to challenge the measure before the Regional Administrative Court of Piedmont TAR Piemonte , paying €650 each in filing and administrative costs. Alongside the appeal, they also requested that the exclusion order be suspended. The measure lasts for two years and, given the length of administrative proceedings, without a suspension any favourable ruling could have arrived only after the ban had already expired. In support of their appeal, the four explained who they were, reconstructing their lives, university studies, activities and projects, and explaining why they were travelling to Turin that day. They were between 20 and 22 years old. In the case of our reporter, we also documented the information and reporting work carried out through the collective, without concealing any aspect of our editorial history. Despite this, the Regional Administrative Court of Piedmont rejected the request for suspension, leaving the exclusion orders in force. At that point, three people, including M., decided to continue the case before the Council of State Consiglio di Stato , Italy’s highest administrative court. Based on his experience, the lawyer had estimated that a possible order to pay legal costs would amount to around €1,000 per person. The three therefore decided to proceed, believing they could bear that risk and convinced that the evidence presented in the appeal could be sufficient to obtain a favourable decision. In early August, the lawyer informed us of the outcome: the Council of State rejected the appeal and ordered each of the three to pay €3,000 to the Ministry of the Interior. Once additional costs are taken into account, the total is expected to amount to approximately €13,000. And now? Given the unusual amount involved and the way this case has developed, we cannot perceive this ruling as a simple administrative consequence of what happened on 31 January, but rather as a measure with a punitive character. The decision came on 31 July, just days after heightened tensions surrounding the No TAV protests. These were the same days in which Minister Crosetto described the events in the Susa Valley as a form of “urban guerrilla warfare”, going so far as to draw a parallel with the Red Brigades. But beyond the political context in which this decision was handed down, there are two aspects of the case that we consider particularly serious. The first concerns the way our work was treated. Although we had explained in detail why M. was in Turin, our journalistic work received no recognition. M. was treated simply as a person in possession of certain objects — a bicycle helmet, a gas mask and a pair of protective goggles — without taking into account that this equipment is part of the standard personal protective gear used by those documenting demonstrations where clashes are expected. This principle concerns us because, under this approach, it is not necessarily required for someone to have been involved in conduct defined as “unlawful”. It may be enough to “find oneself” in the wrong place, to be carrying certain objects and to be considered potentially willing to use them. It is a tendency we are increasingly seeing emerge in the state’s management of social conflict, as with the introduction of preventive detention. The second issue concerns precisely this shift: what is being sanctioned is not something that actually happened, but an alleged future intention. The measure does not respond to any conduct by M. during a demonstration — which he did not even attend — but is instead based on the possibility that those objects could have been used to break the law. The focus therefore shifts from sanctioning an action to the preventive assessment of a person based on what, according to those making the judgement, they might potentially be inclined to do. Over the years, we have already moved from a law that sanctions acts to one that sanctions people and their possible intentions. And this is the point that, in our view, concerns everyone. If this approach becomes a precedent, the issue no longer concerns only five people who were travelling to Turin that day, but potentially anyone who finds themselves in a similar situation. There is no need to be involved in a clash or to commit a crime: a presumption about what someone might do can be enough. For this reason, we have decided to turn this case into something different: from an individual case into a collective one. We are asking the community that has supported us over these years to help us overcome this emergency, but also to help build a collective response based on solidarity. If we manage to raise the necessary amount, we will not only have dealt with a financial burden that today falls directly on M. as an individual; we will also have demonstrated that one kind of precedent can be met with another: a precedent of concrete solidarity between those who produce information, those who mobilise and those who support these struggles. For Chrono, moreover, this marks a point of no return. We are still three students in our early twenties, and for years we have built this project while balancing our studies, work and the activities of the collective. We postponed developing a more solid structure because our material conditions did not allow us to do so. Today, we can no longer afford to keep postponing it. The consequences of what happened have shown us concretely how fragile a project can be when it relies almost entirely on the voluntary and unrecognised work of a small number of people. The kind of work we want to carry out, and the context in which that work is increasingly being obstructed, therefore require us to move to a different scale. What happened to a member of our collective is not an isolated incident. In recent months, we have seen pressure and attacks directed at other organisations that provide information, communication and support to social movements, as in the case of Autistici/Inventati. We had already believed for some time that the moment had come to build a more solid structure. Today, that need can no longer be postponed. But before we can address it, we first need to overcome the emergency in front of us. For this reason, we are asking for active support through our crowdfunding campaign, with a target of €4,500 to cover the share of the costs imposed on M.: https://mutuosoccorso.chronocol.com Once this first target has been reached, the fundraiser will remain open to support the other two people involved as well, with the aim of contributing, as far as possible, towards covering the full cost of the ruling. To the individuals who follow us, to the organisations and collectives with whom we have shared parts of this journey, to those who have recognised the value of our work over the years, and to those encountering us for the first time: we are asking for your help to get through this phase. Within the limits of our means, Chrono has always tried to support those who have committed themselves, organised and fought to build spaces of solidarity and struggle. Today, we are the ones who need that same support.