Victim of La Manada and the headline making turmoil, Josele Se1nchez, the editor of a far right newspaper, published an article on his site under the title I donind you, accusing the young woman who was assaulted during the 2016 Sanfermines of being intoxicated. He claimed that after the event someone decided to drive and that the incident should be treated as a confrontation among men. This creation, labeled Cartagen a 2 by observers of the case, became the subject of legal action resulting in a prison sentence of three years and a ban from crimes against moral integrity and from disclosing confidential information.
The presiding judge described Josele Se1nchez as a person who seriously disturbed the victim by sharing personal data and a photograph taken by members of La Manada at the time of the assault. The judge noted that the statements aired in May 2018 suggested a mood to harm, implying that the victim had not clearly objected. The editor asserted that the encounter with five men was not about intimidation but a supposed act of liberation. The court noted that the author behaved in a way that could harm the reputation and privacy of the young woman, making the public expose seem unrelated to free opinion.
insults and notoriety
The judge emphasized that the wording in the publication was clearly insulting and that the author held a public role which amplified the impact. The decision highlighted that the article even named institutions associated with the victim, which were irrelevant to the stated opinion.
The judge reaffirmed that the conviction of the five Andalusian assailants goes beyond personal beliefs and stands as a legal fact that must be acknowledged.
The journalist shared photographs showing the victim in the act, including a so called black kiss image associated with one of the perpetrators. The court suggested that the defendant during trial refused to accept the published material viewed in Navarra Court.”
An unnamed young woman
Josele Se1nchez argued that the content aimed to violate privacy and that the victim was aware of the illegal nature of the material being published. He argued that the broader media coverage and public demonstrations justified such postings. The judge countered that facts remain facts regardless of public interest and stressed that the original conviction stands as a legal truth rather than a matter of opinion.
The judge observed that the piece discussing the sentence and the acts of La Manada could not change the core legal outcome. The court underscored that the victim suffered from privacy violations and a wave of online abuse following the publication.
offensive terms
The court accepted that challenging a sentence is within lawful bounds but warned that phrases injuring the victim or spreading explicit images violate privacy protections. The publication of sexual photos and the dissemination of the victims identity were deemed unlawful and harmful.
The convicted man urged readers to join a campaign against gender ideology, claiming that men should not be criminalized
During the trial the defendant asserted his right to free expression to justify the publication. The magistrate dismissed this claim, explaining that private sexual life and privacy laws govern such actions. The court noted that the photos could be accessed by a broad online audience without consent and under the circumstances of the case.
The article described the victim in a demeaning light and claimed that it was a tool to defend a perceived casual nature of the sexual act.
Increase in web visits
The defendant questioned the court’s ruling about the dissemination ban, arguing that he did not know in detail about the prohibition. After the article went live, the site reportedly saw a rise in visits, and the journalist appeared as a guest on a Basque regional program. The court rejected the assertion that ignorance of the ban could excuse the behavior.
The judgment also notes that the victim received a surge of anonymous messages online and that this had negative effects on her mood and mental well-being. The court documented the emotional toll inflicted by the publication.
Consensual relationships
Following the verdict, Josele Se1nchez posted a video on a widely used platform and reiterated his position while again revealing the victims identity. He described the other men involved as despicable but claimed that the incident was consensual. He referred to his own beliefs and publicly asserted that a legal truth opposed to official channels was being imposed. He urged followers to challenge what he called gender ideology and to resist what he described as extreme sexualization of society and the sex education lessons aimed at younger children. The journalist also stated that he would continue to publish from prison despite a three year journalism ban.
The case continues to be a focal point in discussions about privacy, gender policy, and press responsibility, highlighting the tension between free expression and the protection of victims in high profile sexual assault cases. [Citation: Navarra Court records and official judgments]