The Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court rejected the appeal filed by Pablo Iglesias and Podemos against the decision of the Madrid court which rejected the journalist Edward Inda and Dos Mil Palabras SL – editor-in-chief of Okdiario – allegedly violated his honor by declaring that it was an undemocratic party financed with money from Venezuela and Iran.
The magistrates consider that the assessment made by the Court on the exercise of freedom of expression and its possible collision with the right to honor was “correct”.
The events date back to April 2021, when in a television program Inda said that “one day the media will have to reflect on what the constant promotion of this character has been over the last seven years (referring to Iglesias), of his party.” (Podemos), when it is an anti-democratic party, a party financed by two dictatorships, by the Venezuelan one which, eh, eh, come on, assassinates dissidents and people who do not agree with them; funded by the Iranian dictatorship, which hangs homosexuals for being homosexual and stones women.
The same day, the journalist published an article and a video in which he reiterated these accusations that he had made against the secretary general of Podemos and other leaders of said party.
The broadcast of the television program and the publication of the article and video took place during the campaign for the regional elections in the Community of Madrid, during which Podemos broadcast a video in which the image of several journalists appeared , among whom Inda was there, right in front of the image of a young woman giving the fascist salute, and she said to herself “they have already spoken” and “only they are heard”. In the aforementioned television program and before the statements on the financing of Podemos by Venezuela and Iran, Inda had accused Iglesias and Irene Montero of targeting journalists.
“Freedom of expression has a scope broader than freedom of information because it does not include the communication of facts, but rather the issuance of judgments, beliefs, thoughts and opinions of a personal and subjective nature,” clarifies the Supreme Court.
The Chamber recognizes that “it is not always easy to separate the expression of thoughts, ideas and opinions guaranteed by the right to freedom of expression from the simple recounting of facts guaranteed by the right to freedom of information, because the expression of thoughts often requires support from the narration of the facts and, vice versa (…).” This is what he believes is happening in this case.
In the context of an electoral campaign, “clear confrontation between the partieswho are at ideological opposite ends, and in response to a Podemos campaign video in which the image of Mr. Inda appeared linked in one way or another to fascism”, the journalist “criticized” Podemos and two of its leaders, as well as the media promoted Iglesias and his party, which he called “undemocratic” and which was financed by Venezuela and Iran, which he called “dictatorships”, because the first “kills dissidents and people with whom he does not communicate”, and the second “hangs homosexuals because they are homosexuals and stones women”.
“What prevailed in these demonstrations was not to report on certain events but to send a message negative value judgment concerning a political leader and his party, and responding to what he considers to be an attack on their part in the broadcast of an electoral video, it must therefore be considered that the accused exercised freedom of expression”, underlines -he.
For the magistrates, it is not disputed here that the remarks in question dealt with questions of general interest, both by the very nature of the subject (political criticism) and by those who were concerned (a political leader and his party). . “The resource on which no longer rests insulting or degrading expressions disconnected from the area affected by the demonstrations carried out (…).
The controversy would affect, he continues, the existence of a sufficient factual basis, which cannot be confused with the accuracy of the declarations made nor with the legality or illicit nature of the receipt of funds from these States. In this sense, “we consider correct the assessment made by the contested judgment of certain facts as constituting a sufficient factual basis”.
