Against Reputation
Nearing the end of this week, a new judgment hit the headlines involving the rapper Morad. He had already accepted a two-year prison term for a mass confrontation with police in L’Hospitalet de Llobregat. The latest ruling reinforces that episode by sentencing him to a 3,600 euro fine for defaming a Mossos d’Esquadra officer during the same incident in L’Hospitalet.
According to the court document obtained by this outlet, the events unfolded on April 27, 2022, when Catalan police faced public disorder around the Florida blocks. The rapper is said to have begun recording the operation with his mobile phone, which included a shot of one of the officers involved.
Following the police action, Morad posted on his Instagram account, which had almost two million followers at the time, a clip in which the uniformed officer appeared. The post, described in the ruling as a “story” intended to reach a broad audience, aimed to maximize dissemination in order to “vilify” the officer and invite insults and ridicule both on social networks and in his private life.
The court found that Morad’s conduct harmed the dignity and reputation of the officer, represented by attorney Sandra Melgar of the Aranda, Melgar y Tàsies Advocats firm, through a 15-second video showcasing the officer’s face during the exchange and a text accusing the officer of abusing minors and mistreating people in the neighborhood. The ruling notes that the posting was designed to humiliate and that it presented false allegations about criminal conduct attributed to the officer.
The sentence, agreed upon by Morad and the prosecutions, emphasizes that the rapper’s text was insulting and defamatory, alleging false criminal behavior, and that Morad published two additional photos of the officer’s face on the same social network accompanied by messages such as: “bully, stop hitting the neighborhood’s minors, let people live, corrupt, thief and bully,” and “if you are a relative or friend, tell him to stop abusing, especially the children.”
These posts were quickly viewed by a large audience, including the officer’s relatives, friends, colleagues, and superiors, who contacted him to inform him of the events. The ruling also notes that the publication contributed to a 30-day medical leave due to an anxiety-driven depressive episode with phobias, which required medication.
Therefore, in addition to the fine, Morad was ordered to compensate the officer with 10,000 euros for moral and emotional damages. The court allowed the payment of this amount along with the suspended fine in five monthly installments starting in March, with a warning that nonpayment could lead to imprisonment. The judgment is final, as neither side appealed the conformity agreement.
The case marks a second formal ruling against Morad within the same week, following the two-year prison sentence he accepted for instigating stone-throwing at Guardia Urbana officers in L’Hospitalet. Those officers had intervened near the Blocs de La Florida to stop a video shoot between Morad and the rapper Rim’K, which had been conducted without the necessary permissions in the area.
Public Dissemination
Morad’s messages were described as being viewed by a wide audience of family, friends, and professional colleagues, all of whom reached out to the officer to inform him of the events. The ruling also highlights the impact of the posts on the officer’s health, noting a period of leave and treatment for anxiety and depressive symptoms with phobias, prompted in part by the online exposure.
The court’s decision reflects a broader concern with online accountability and the reputational damage that can arise from social media posts. It underscores how statements made in digital formats can carry legal consequences and emphasizes the protection of public servants from defamatory content that biases public perception or undermines their professional integrity.
In sum, Morad’s latest conviction reinforces the message that using social media to vilify public officials, especially by leveraging visual and textual content to imply criminal conduct, can lead to meaningful penalties and compensation orders. The ruling also illustrates how courts balance freedom of expression with the protection of individual dignity and official conduct in the digital age.