Fidia

Hi Mista, I take this opportunity to once again extend my apologies if I came across as a bit aggressive; I thought it was the usual review written by someone incompetent, and when I read your selection on the Sabbath records, I lost it. I'm sorry, but you need to know that I’m the type of person who says "take everything away from me but my Sabbath," and I reacted impulsively. I understood your deliberately whimsical reviewing style, and in fact, with a different mindset, I must say that this review entertained me and it’s clear that you know a thing or two about this kind of music. The band you reviewed I only know because of the singer who collaborates on Luca Turilli’s solo work. However, since the genre (power with epic contours) is somewhat falling off for me, I can't promise I’ll look into the band more.

Absolutely fantastic, the best silly review I have read on the portal, with all due respect to the others...

Mr. Disco, even though I prefer Dr. Feelgood which, in my opinion, is the best of the Crue.

I only know the band by reputation, but I will gladly read your review... If you tell me they are good, I believe you 100%.

You deserve a comment, Enrico. I really like the fact that you are bringing back into fashion glam and hard rock bands from the '80s. A period that many underestimate and, in my opinion, is not even comparable to the musical trends in metal that emerged in the '90s and with the grunge fashion of today (which I must say I still adore, especially Alice in Chains) and the nu-metal drift of recent times.
In addition to Warrant, I personally enjoy bands like Enuff Z'Nuff, Tyketto, House of Lords, Lizzy Borden, Quireboys, Faster Pussycats, the legendary Stryper, Kip's Winger, the incredible Skid Row, the much-maligned G N'R, L.A. Guns, and many more.
If you want, take a look at my review on Def Leppard, which sadly hasn't received any comments, and let me know what you think.

As you wish, Vin, but know that for me, Amorphis starts with Tales and ends with Elegy.

Of course Mista, I would appreciate your thoughts...
But what I'm really interested in is your technical consideration as a professional in the field, not your personal opinion on Vic's writings, because in that context I've heard all kinds of things (obviously all comments from those not in the field, and therefore limited to saying things like: you're a sheriff, a bigot, or nonsense like that).
With you, it would be something different, so I'm looking forward to your opinion (I repeat, not the usual things like the inviolability of the right to satire, etc., which I am honestly tired of, as I am the first to agree with those who accuse me of bigotry), but exclusively a legal perspective on the abstract applicability of the legislative provision I mentioned (even though your opinion would still be partial since you haven't read the censored part).

Your considerations are entirely valid, but they have the only flaw of delving into the merits of the issue, which technically might not be our place to do. I'm not saying this to create controversy, but as you know very well, it's an objective fact. I was asked to provide evidence, well, I'm not obligated to do so. We can talk as long as you want about everything else, whether the mitigating factor of the right to satire applies, whether the fact is not substantiated, etc. We can discuss this, of course, and I can take any criticism you want to throw at me. But regarding the matter of evidence, there is no argument to refute that; anyone with even a basic understanding of the law would know this. It's simply a technical issue that cannot be disputed at all because it's OBJECTIVELY regulated in this way.

Give it a read if you want to know more about the matter, take a look at the law I mentioned in the comments to the incriminated review. You will notice that I didn't just throw out random nonsense without legal basis, but that there is a specific law that could, and I say COULD, be applied to the case in question. Don't tell me that I have to provide the evidence, I'm not a Judge, for heaven's sake.

I'll say it again... I only pointed out the danger that someone might consider the possibility of filing a complaint, plain and simple.
Moreover, you haven't read the censored part and, believe me, if it was censored, there's a reason for it.