Some arguments seem to offer us a ready-made conclusion. One person says to the other: “You are a liar.” The other replies: “You are the liar.” The observer's temptation is immediate: “Then you are both liars.” If we replace “liar” with stronger words - “corrupt”, “thief”, “dishonest” - the remark becomes even more forceful. But this is precisely where three different levels meet: logic, language and law. Confusing them produces an interesting error: we move from the certain fact that there are two accusations to the far-from-certain conclusion that both are true.
The Small Logical Error
Let us call the two opponents A and B. A states: “B is a liar.” B replies: “A is a liar.” What do we really know? We know only that A accuses B and that B accuses A. We do not yet know who is telling the truth. There are several possibilities: A may be lying, B may be lying, both may be lying, or the words may refer to different incidents and both accusations may be well-founded. Mutual accusation does not, by itself, provide proof of the accusation.
Two mutual accusations establish the existence of two accusations, not the existence of two guilty people.
This is an elementary distinction between the level of discourse and the level of facts. “A says that B stole something” is a statement about what A says. “B stole something”, by contrast, is a statement about facts. Moving from the first to the second requires further verification.
The Third Observer: Reporter or Judge?
The third participant in the conversation has at least three ways to intervene. They may look similar, but they are profoundly different.
| Wording | What It Does | The Issue |
|---|---|---|
| “You are calling each other liars.” | Reports what happened. | Does not establish who is right. |
| “Each of you claims that the other is a thief.” | Correctly attributes the accusation to the person who made it. | The distance from the accusation must remain clear. |
| “You are both thieves.” | Turns the accusations into a statement of one's own. | Requires an independent basis; it does not follow logically from the argument. |
This distinction is essential outside courtrooms too. A good narrator can report an accusation without adopting it. The problem begins when grammar erases that distance: the quotation marks disappear, the verb “accuse” disappears, and what was once someone else's claim becomes our own.
“Liar”, “Corrupt”, “Thief”: They Are Not the Same Thing
Words carry different weights. “Liar” may express a judgement about a person's communicative behaviour, often a broad and polemical one. “Corrupt” and “thief”, however, may also be understood as allegations of criminal conduct. Context determines a great deal: a metaphor, a joke, an exaggeration, a report of court proceedings and an accusation presented as an established fact are not linguistically equivalent.
Under Italian law, defamation concerns harm to a person's reputation communicated to several people; attributing a specific act and using means of publicity affect the rules under Article 595 of the Criminal Code. Case law also distinguishes reporting, criticism and satire, considering the truth or reliability of underlying facts, public interest, restraint in expression and, above all, the overall context of the statement.
The point is not to find a “magic word” that makes any accusation harmless: what matters is the meaning the statement takes on in its context.
The Paradox: Using an Accusation Without Turning It into a Verdict
This is where things become most interesting. If two opponents accuse each other, an observer can use that contradiction to construct a joke, making clear that they are working with the hypothesis put forward by the opponents, not certifying the truth of the accusations. This is a logical and expressive distinction, not a guarantee of lawfulness.
“If, as you accuse each other of being, you really were both thieves, you might as well take turns governing: at least the people benefiting from it would change.”
The humour comes from the absurdity of the consequence: instead of eliminating the wrongdoing, we distribute it. It is a reductio ad absurdum in satirical form. The joke does not say that corruption or theft is acceptable; on the contrary, it shows how grotesque it would be to take both accusations as true and turn them into a criterion for alternating in power.
Other Examples of the Same Mechanism
Incompetence: A: “You are incapable of governing.” B: “You are the incapable one.”
“If you were both right, taking turns would not be the solution: we would merely double the problem.”
Favouritism: A: “You always favour your friends.” B: “You do the same.”
“If it were true of both of you, alternating in power would at least have the curious effect of periodically changing which friends were favoured.”
Broken promises: A: “You never keep a promise.” B: “You keep even fewer.”
“If your descriptions of each other were accurate, the most credible programme would be the one that promised nothing.”
Waste: A: “You waste money.” B: “You waste more.”
“If you were both right, alternating in power would not reduce the waste: it would only change the signature at the bottom of the invoice.”
Manipulation: A: “You manipulate the facts.” B: “You are the one manipulating them.”
“At this point, the only certain information is that you both consider the other's account unreliable.”
Clientelism: A accuses B of rewarding their own circle; B directs the same accusation at A.
“If the hypothesis were true of both of you, alternating in power would widen the circle of beneficiaries, not improve the quality of the system.”
These examples illustrate a useful rule: the more serious the accusation, the more important it is to retain the linguistic signal that keeps it hypothetical or attributed. Expressions such as “if it were true”, “according to what you say about each other” and “if we took your accusations literally” help the reader avoid confusing the satirical premise with a factual assertion by the author.
Accurately attributing an allegation and using conditional language helps distinguish words from facts, but does not automatically make publication lawful: the context and the limits of reporting, criticism and satire still matter.
Satire Is Not an Unlimited Licence
Satire thrives on distortion, exaggeration and paradox. That is precisely why it cannot be measured by the same yardstick as neutral reporting. Yet no formula automatically makes any statement lawful simply because it is presented as a joke. Italy's Court of Cassation has reiterated that context is decisive and that, within the rights of criticism and satire, an expression must serve its critical or satirical purpose and relate to a matter of public interest.
In a decision discussed in the November 2025 criminal-law review (Court of Cassation, Fifth Criminal Section, No. 37104/2025), the Court gave weight to the satirical context of a comparison between a mayor and a film character symbolising political misconduct: the expression was read as ironic criticism of the mayor's administration, not as gratuitous degradation of the individual. In the field of court reporting, by contrast, the Joint Civil Divisions, in judgment No. 13200/2025, highlighted how damaging it can be to turn a procedural status or a fact into something more serious than the records actually show. In particular, falsely describing someone as a defendant rather than a person under investigation, or attributing an essentially different fact that harms their reputation, can defeat the defence based on the right to report judicial proceedings, unless the overall context makes the different, correct meaning unequivocal. These are assessments of specific situations, not formulas to be applied automatically to any controversy.
The Verb That Saves the Reasoning: “Accuse”
A good part of the logical problem can be resolved with one verb. “Accuse” clearly identifies who is responsible for the assertion. Compare:
“John is a thief.” → “Peter accuses John of theft.”
“They are both corrupt.” → “They accuse each other of corruption.”
“Both of them are lying.” → “Each claims that the other is lying.”
In the imaginary left-hand column, the author adopts the content; in the right-hand column, the author describes a speech act. This is no minor distinction: it is the difference between recounting a dispute and delivering one's own verdict.
The Real Joke Is Not “They Are Both Thieves”
The weakest joke is precisely the one that seems most aggressive: “You are both thieves.” It adds little to the argument and, above all, erases the logical mechanism that makes the scene interesting. Satire becomes more intelligent when it exposes the contradiction without claiming to resolve it.
“I do not know which of you is telling the truth. But I do know that, if I took both your accusations as true, the picture would be decidedly worrying.”
Or, in a sharper version: “If each of you knows the other as well as you claim, the problem is not deciding whom to believe: it is understanding why we should believe either of you.” Here the irony does not certify a crime or wrongdoing. It targets the very structure of the confrontation: each tries to destroy the other's credibility and ends up, unintentionally, suggesting a more general distrust to the observer.
A Small Grammar of Caution
Someone writing for a website, especially when commenting on real, recognisable people, can retain expressive force without confusing facts and judgements. Certain linguistic structures help: always attribute an accusation to the person who made it; distinguish what is documented from what is opinion; use clearly hypothetical language when constructing a paradox; avoid a headline turning into established fact what was only an allegation in the text; preserve the context needed for the reader to understand the ironic intent.
Conclusion: The Third Voice
When two people shout “liar”, “corrupt” or “thief” at each other, a third person does not magically acquire the power to add the accusations together and turn them into truth. But they can do something more interesting: observe the structure of the conflict.
From a logical perspective, they can say: “Your mutual accusations prove nothing about one another.” From a narrative perspective, they can say: “You are accusing each other.” From a satirical perspective, they can briefly take both accusations as hypotheses and show their absurd consequences.
Good satire does not need to become a verdict. It need only take a line of reasoning to the point where its absurdity becomes visible.
And perhaps this is the most interesting position for the third person: not to proclaim “you are both thieves”, but to reply: “If you really were both right about each other, your argument would just have produced a case against you both.”
Legal Note and Sources
This text is a general reflection, not legal advice on specific cases. In Italy, defamation is governed by Article 595 of the Criminal Code; the assessment of reporting, criticism and satire depends on the specific context. Further reading: Court of Cassation, Joint Civil Divisions, judgment No. 13200/2025 (press defamation and accurate attribution of facts); Court of Cassation, November 2025 Monthly Review, Fifth Criminal Section, judgment No. 37104/2025, pp. 71-72 (the rights of political criticism and satire and the need to assess context); Court of Cassation, order No. 6960/2024, Third Civil Section, March 2024 Monthly Review, p. 92 (the limits and purpose of satirical expression).
What I Would Like to Leave My Children
I would like to leave all three of you the habit of pausing for a moment before judging. When two people accuse each other, you do not have to pick a side immediately, or condemn them both to appear impartial. You can say: I do not know yet; I want to understand. That is a form of honesty, not weakness.
Do not give up irony: a joke can illuminate what a solemn speech conceals. But remember that behind a name is a person. The strength of your words should not depend on the harm you can do them.
I would like you always to distinguish what you have seen, what you have verified and what someone has told you. Defending that distinction means respecting others and your own intelligence. Even when everyone has already delivered a verdict, you have the right to keep looking for the truth.
Papy