In recent weeks, three notable resolutions addressing the harmful spread of social networks and digital communications were published. The sentences are not immediately disclosed, as they are kept anonymous, and much of the media remains content with agency teletypes that capture the most notorious aspects and distribute them quickly for a stated cause.
In November 2022, the Barcelona County Court convicted a member of the Civil Guard for fabricating a hoax about unaccompanied minors of Moroccan origin. A video showing a violent sexual assault from China, distributed by authorities there to aid in identifying criminals, was misrepresented on the defendant’s Twitter account in July 2019 as if it depicted a rape by Moroccan minors in a Catalan town.
The charged offense concerned a violation of human dignity based on discriminatory motives under Article 510 of the Criminal Code. The court found clear hostility toward foreign immigrants of Moroccan origin, especially unaccompanied minors. Reading the full sentence reveals that by spreading this message, the defendant acted with evident contempt for the truth, reaching a broad audience on social media and shaping prejudices and stereotypes that targeted a particularly vulnerable group.
Consequently, the offense infringed on the exercise of fundamental rights and public freedoms safeguarded by the constitutional order. The public prosecutor’s office reached an agreement with the defendant, who avoided prison by agreeing to conduct rules, including ceasing network activities and participating in an anti-discrimination training program.
The second case involved Cartagena 2.197. The accused published a column criticizing a victim of the infamous sexual assault carried out by a group known as La Manada in Pamplona. He targeted the victim under a pseudonym and publicly disclosed identifying information, including the victim’s name, address, two photos, and the university attended.
The offense touching on moral integrity stems from the column’s content and cannot be fully repeated here, while the disclosure of personal data and images was prohibited by the Navarra State Court during the proceedings. These events date back to May 2018.
The sentence invites consideration in informatics faculties. It underscores that the right to honor and the right to freedom of expression—particularly in the realm of information—must be weighed against one another within institutional techniques. The decisive ruling highlights that freedom of expression does not cover insults, and the victim, who faced numerous threats after the personal data was released, had to seek psychological help and leave Spain to avoid recognition in public spaces.
By deliberately exposing the victim to humiliation, the defendant was convicted of both crimes. The maximum penalty applied to the disclosure of secrets, though mitigation reduced the punishment due to delays in the investigation.
A famous writer and Twitter user residing in Malaga, Madrid three mobilized media and civil society in support of the public discourse surrounding the case.
There is no point in multiplying messages since acts of torture and other crimes against moral integrity are criminalized under Article 173 of the Penal Code. In this case, the writer claimed his messages were satirical and related to media coverage of the case, arguing they fell within freedom of expression and freedom of art, while aiming to draw attention to the consistency between published messages and literary work.
Following the sentence, opinions emerged both for and against the accused. The court ruled that the actions harmed the family of the deceased child, even as some argued satire targeted the media rather than the individuals. The case prompted reflections on how contextualizing satire within media treatment should be handled, as noted in a bold article by journalist Carmen Camacho that urged measured responses to this painful subject. The judge emphasized that satirical commentary would have needed to direct its critique at media outlets themselves, not at victims, to avoid justifying harm.
Three sentences from the 2018 and 2019 period merit careful study. It is likely more will surface in time, but the online world continues to bear the weight of such actions.