Supreme Court Rules on Online Dignity Case Involving a Sports Referee

No time to read?
Get a summary

The Supreme Court addressed a case involving insults directed at a handball referee on the Facebook page of the Canary sports club Chinijos Costa Teguise. The posts appeared after a child paused during a handball game, raising questions about the suitability of certain eyewear used in youth sports.

The court explained that the messages went beyond simple commentary about a postponed match. They aimed to discredit the referee in both his private life and his role as a local police officer, in a manner that seemed disproportionately harsh given the referee’s on‑field performance. The statements carried a clear, objective meaning and, though not directly tied to officiating duties, subjected the official to substantial contempt.

Initially, the referee filed a lawsuit against four individuals accused of violating his dignity on the club’s Facebook page. A court in Arrecife (Lanzarote) ruled that three defendants should compensate him a total of 18,000 euros, while one defendant was acquitted because the plaintiff had withdrawn the case against them. The decision also required the offending comments to be removed and ordered the defendants to publish the court ruling on their Facebook accounts.

Subsequently, the Provincial Court of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria convicted two defendants and acquitted the third, reducing the compensation to 12,000 euros. The Supreme Court upheld this ruling, citing several particularly injurious remarks such as calling the referee a frustrated, dangerous figure in uniform, criticizing his arrogance and lack of empathy, and insinuating personal failings from childhood. Phrases suggested that the referee’s authority was misused and implied that his professional position was a source of harm or humiliation for others.

The Supreme Court clarified that these statements exceeded the bounds of freedom of expression by directly assaulting the plaintiff’s dignity and personal integrity. It noted that identifying a target does not always require explicit naming; indirect references, combined with the referee’s role and police status, were enough to make the remarks personally identifiable. The court emphasized that such characterization can expose a public figure to harm beyond the sports arena.

The Chamber rejected objections claiming the monetary award was excessive, stating that the alleged damages were both objective and moral in nature. It underscored that the content of the allegations went beyond sports and touched on the referee’s private life and childhood, amplifying the harm through social networks and the lasting impact on the plaintiff’s reputation and well-being. In short, the court asserted that reputational harm is not limited to professional settings but can spill over into personal life, affecting how the individual is perceived in everyday environments.

Ultimately, the case demonstrates the responsibility that accompanies online expression, especially when it targets a person’s dignity and professional identity. The ruling reinforces that online posts, even in the context of sport, must respect individuals’ rights and avoid demeaning language and personal attacks. The decision stands as a warning about the consequences of inflammatory remarks on social media and the potential for substantial compensation when those remarks cross legal boundaries.

No time to read?
Get a summary
Previous Article

Dakar 2024: Nani Roma and Laia Sanz push through, with Ford’s bold return

Next Article

Russia’s New Domestic Industrial Registry and Digital Passport System