After the announcement of Andrea Pucci’s participation in Sanremo, the debate quickly heated up. On the one hand, criticism linked to his comedic style and past jokes deemed divisive; on the other, an increasingly intense social reaction, made up of aggressive comments, personal delegitimization and, according to what the comedian himself declared, even threats.
The comedian’s refusal to participate in the festival thus becomes something that goes beyond the news of the show and speaks of the way in which the web builds consensus, dissent and pressure. The case enters everyday life silently, as stories that touch exposed nerves do. It happens while you read a notification, while you absentmindedly scroll through your phone, while you realize that the public debate increasingly resembles a continuous emotional flow.
Judgments that grow over time until they become identities
In the story that takes shape online, Pucci is associated with a comedy deemed misogynistic and homophobic, described as stereotyped, accused of normalizing sexist language and disrespectful towards LGBTQ+ people. Jokes from the past are recovered, extrapolated, relaunched as definitive proof of a cultural distance deemed incompatible with the Ariston stage.
On social media this narrative is consolidated day after day. Indignant comments, clear stances, articles that chase the sentiment of the moment. The character takes over the person. The judgment becomes permanent. The exposition is continuous, without pauses, without decompression spaces. Criticism ceases to remain confined to artistic work and slips into the personal, emotional, everyday sphere.
What scientific studies say about cyberbullying in adults
Scientific research offers precise words to describe what happens in these cases. The study published on Policy & Internet analyzes the so-called chilling effect. This effect describes a clear dynamic: exposure to a hostile climate leads people to reduce their public presence, to withdraw, to choose silence as a form of emotional protection. Withdrawal arises from psychological overload, fueled by repeated attacks and a constant perception of judgment.
Another central contribution comes from the Italian study Rethinking cyberbullying between social media and hate messagespublished on Media Educationwhich shows how cyberbullying also affects adults and public figures, with concrete effects on emotional well-being. Collective digital fury produces stress, a sense of isolation, and a loss of control over one’s public image. Platforms amplify these dynamics through virality and repetition.
Within this framework, renunciation becomes a human response to a pressure perceived as constant and invasive.
Pucci case in Sanremo: why it’s not censorship
In the case of Pucci’s withdrawal from Sanremo, the word censorship poorly describes what happened. Censorship requires a formal act, a ban imposed from above, an institutional decision that prevents expression. Here the dynamic follows another path: it comes from below, from social protests. Pressure doesn’t stop you from speaking, but it makes the psychological cost of doing so too high. It’s a dynamic that scholars increasingly define as induced retraction from the digital context.
In light of these elements, the Sanremo case is part of a dynamic of systemic digital pressure. The accusations made against the comedian are part of the cultural debate. The way in which that debate turns into continuous and exhausting exposure is closer to cyberbullying, not censorship.
In the noise of the debate, Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni also appears and, taking the comedian’s defense, tells a satire that is accepted when it concerns her and becomes a problem when it affects other political figures. Bizarre, I dare say: language remains a serious matter when it concerns oneself and suddenly becomes light-hearted when it concerns others. Words show a remarkable ability to adapt.
Public language and emotional fragility in the digital ecosystem
Pucci’s news tells an uncomfortable story even for critics. The accusations leveled against the comedian find space in a legitimate cultural debate, linked to language, representation and respect. At the same time, the dynamic that develops shows how easily criticism can transform into an uncontrolled emotional flow, capable of overwhelming the person beyond the character.
This episode talks about how we experience digital public space. It speaks of a community that reacts from the gut, that shares indignation as a form of belonging, that struggles to distinguish between artistic responsibility and personal pressure. It also talks about fragility, about exposure, about bodies and minds that remain human even under the spotlight.
Telling it means keeping together the accusations, the emotions, the scientific data and the daily life of the reader. It means staying in the middle of the story, with an attentive and participatory gaze, without raising your voice.
You might also be interested in:
