Risto Mejide and Miguel Lago could end up in a Madrid court over an issue tied to a past episode of Everything Is a Lie. Court No. 27 in Madrid has named the presenter and the comedian, who was previously a defendant, as under investigation for an alleged hate crime involving the unvaccinated. The complaint traces back to November 2021 when concerns about restrictive measures targeting unvaccinated people were raised in public remarks and editorial commentary.
The core of the complaint rests on statements made by Mejide and his former collaborator when they commented on proposed policies restricting activity or access for the unvaccinated. Critics argue these remarks framed unvaccinated individuals as a vulnerable group needing social or legal penalties, while supporters maintained that public health measures could justify such measures in specific contexts. The reference comes from the coverage in the 20Minutos portal, which captured the rhetoric attributed to the two figures during that period.
The presiding judge has indicated a readiness to proceed with the oral hearing, noting that the behavior being examined could be seen as repeated and potentially provoking feelings of hatred through violent or discursive expression. The decision, which followed an earlier dismissal of the crimes, leaves open the possibility of pursuing the case further if the proceedings uncover new evidence or if motions by the defense or prosecution shift the legal posture. The ongoing process highlights how public statements in media contexts can become part of formal civil or criminal reviews, depending on statutory interpretations and the specifics of the case.
This situation shows the path from a televised comment to a legal inquiry. The matters at hand involve how public figures weigh in on health policy and the boundaries of free speech within a framework that considers potential harm, social impact, and the line between opinion and incitement. If the case advances, Mejide and Lago would face formal scrutiny at the regional level, with possible outcomes ranging from procedural resolutions to criminal penalties if found liable. The dynamic underscores the stakes tied to media commentary when health guidance intersects with civil rights and public safety norms, and it reminds audiences that remarks made on air can carry consequences far beyond the studio.