“Trampling on feminism”
The case centers on a complaint against three top figures at the Ministry of Equality: Irene Montero, Victoria Rosell and Ángela Rodríguez, known as Pam. The suit argues that a former porn actress degraded herself, damaged her image, and harmed her reputation by funding with public money an exhibition about sexual abuse held at Atocha station last January. In that event, she faced accusations of endorsing rape and pedophilia. Amarna Miller has since filed a criminal complaint before the Supreme Court, accusing herself in a counterclaim of hate crime as well as insult and slander, according to information obtained by Prensa Ibérica’s investigative unit.
The complaints also target the exhibition’s director and designer, together with a senior official from Adif who allowed the display to be shown on their premises.
“Low Market” and the banners
The exhibition, titled “Low Market,” with the banner Reflections on prostitution and pornography in the construction of masculinities, included panels bearing accusations against Miller such as: she has no sisterhood, she uses feminism to defend something she shouldn’t, and she crushes the bus. The display suggested she did not understand feminist ethics and alleged she defends pedophilia and rape.
The exhibition was criticized as criminalizing the pro-rights feminist movement that supports decriminalizing prostitution, with Miller named as the poster child.
Alongside the banners, mannequins and anti-pornography texts appeared. In several panels, Miller was identified by her initials. The text suggested that what she said had roots in childhood and now she repeats it, implying she is working to shift public opinion on porn, supposedly for her own benefit.
Exhibition posters featuring the former actress were presented in court as part of the evidence in what OPEN CASE described as a staged display by the state.
Amarna Miller argues that the grave accusations raised at the Atocha event amount to incitement to hatred based on gender and ideology. She claims the message targets feminist voices who advocate decriminalizing prostitution and sex work, framing Miller as the standard-bearer for rights feminism while accusing her of supporting rape and pedophilia.
The funding and the background
According to Miller’s filing, the Ministry of Equality allocated fourteen thousand nine hundred ninety-nine euros in public funds to the exhibition, which also included banners accusing Miller of lacking feminist ethics and defending pedophilia and rape. The complaint notes a broader attack against members of the feminist group to which she belonged, describing it as an assault on their ideology, gender, sexual orientation, and gender itself.
A “mockery of feminism”
The complaint emphasizes that Miller, already a well-known public figure in Spain for her feminist activism, faced serious insults during the Atocha demonstration. She asserts these attacks damaged her credibility and cast doubt on her advocacy for gender-based violence and the fight against trafficking. Miller’s supporters argue that the exhibit’s content distorts feminism, turning it into a parody rather than a principled stance.
She requests the High Court to question the exhibition’s director and designer, the Minister for Equality, the government representative against gender-based violence, the Secretary of State for Equality, and Adif’s manager. The request also seeks compensation for damages amounting to two hundred eighty thousand euros.
Public funding and responsibility
The filing claims that Montero, Rosell, and Rodríguez reviewed and approved the project and participated in its funding, arguing that the fourteen thousand nine hundred ninety-nine euros represented a direct reward rather than an advertised contract because the project was small in scope. Ministry sources told OPEN CASE that the exhibition was modest and curated under Rosell, including learning materials and youth responses about the exhibition’s topic.
The filing suggests the funding came with oversight from the ministry and that the project fell under the ministry’s contracting authority, implying responsibility for the decision process.
“Nothing artistic”
Miller’s lawyers assert that the intention behind the exhibit was to defame and discredit her, not to showcase legitimate art or education. The filing contends that using public funds to attack an activist who has long advocated against gender-based violence and trafficking is improper. Miller’s team argues the attack eroded trust in the very institution meant to promote equality and respect, creating a chilling fear of speaking out publicly. There was no comment obtained from Miller’s lawyers or her associates when contacted.
According to the filing, the claims presented at the exhibition accusing Miller of criminal acts are unfounded and dangerous. The argument is that there is nothing artistic about attributing crimes such as rape or pedophilia to an innocent person.
“Pursuing Equality”
Miller’s representatives remind that she has been recognized in Spain as a prominent artist and feminist educator, receiving awards for advancing women’s rights. The complaint states that the events caused economic harm, with Miller losing contracts and experiencing distress as a result of what she terms unfair persecution. The case frames this as a clash between equality goals and the personal defense of dignity against reckless defamation.