The Supreme Court definitively rejected the lawsuit filed by businessman and former deputy Marcos de Quinto against writer and journalist Daniel Bernabé over a Twitter feed. A succession of 14 messages in which Bernabé recounted the experiences of a “guy” nicknamed “De Quinto” and which, according to the businessman, referred to him in a veiled manner. The Supreme Court rejected his request for 25,000 euros in compensation, explaining that Bernabé is protected by his freedom of literary creation and that, moreover, there is no proof that he was referring to the businessman. It was, according to the judges, “a grotesque story whose protagonist is an atrabilary, absurd and grotesque character” who was not the former director of Coca-Cola.
The writer and journalist, collaborator in various media, wrote in August 2022 on the social network a discussion thread “from a guy named De Quinto”. A total of 14 messages in which the character roams bars, nightclubs, concerts and fairs, fighting, brawling and getting drunk until he is scammed into buying a gun.
Marcos de Quinto reacted and sued Bernabé in civil court, demanding compensation of 25,000 euros. A lawsuit in which he said the writer’s account of 14 tweets referred to him, alleging among other things that there were poor relations between them due to public disagreements for years. These first two sentences, now upheld by the Supreme Court, explained that the story, even if the last name coincided, did not refer to Marcos de Quinto.
“They tell a story set in a place and in a context different from that of the date on which they are broadcast. It is therefore a satire with accents of the mores of Spain in the 70s and 80s, highlighting featured a person whose connection to “The complainant has only the surname “De Quinto”, without any other identifying information to link this character to the complainant”, said the Provincial Court of Madrid Marcos de Quinto and Daniel. Bernabé, the court added, did not even know each other personally and certain tweets in which the writer described the businessman as a “butcher executive” are not enough to prove that he is the protagonist of the story. “There is no document in which the accused acknowledges this fact,” the trial courts said.
Some arguments that the Supreme Court now endorses to definitively reject Marcos de Quinto’s claim. Bernabé’s tweets, the first sentence says, were “a literary work, in particular a satire, a grotesque story whose protagonist is a grotesque and caricatured fictional character” who was not the former Ciudadanos deputy. “Although the name of the protagonist of the story coincides with that of the complainant, the circumstances of the said character have absolutely no relation to the complainant,” the Supreme Court says.
From Coca-Cola to a “think tank”
Businessman Marcos de Quinto was vice president of Coca-Cola between 2015 and 2017 and president of the company in Spain at the time an ERA was carried out, which was ultimately annulled by the Supreme Court. He made the jump to politics with Ciudadanos in 2019 as Albert Rivera’s new recruit, leaving politics just over a year later. Since then, his business adventures have taken place in far-right media, such as the bankrupt television channel 7nn or as a shareholder in Estado de Alarma TV, owned by Javier Negre. Two years ago, he helped launch the think tank “Pie en pared” with the goal, he said with Juan Carlos Girauta, of “fighting woke leftism.”
His case against Bernabé failed in the Supreme Court, meaning the businessman will also have to pay the costs of the legal proceedings. The tweets of the journalist and writer, believe the judges, constitute “a grotesque and exaggerated story whose protagonist is an atrabilary, absurd and grotesque character who he places in the 70s thanks to numerous references”.
The messages written by Bernabé on Twitter “describe traditional scenes from Spain from another era, without connecting the actions of their protagonist to scenes or situations currently experienced by the complainant.”
In a statement made public this Friday, Daniel Bernabé celebrated the conviction which puts an end to several years of legal proceedings against him. “We have won again,” he underlines after receiving the third judgment which proves him right in this case. “It is completely illusory that a High Court should dedicate itself to these things because a man with a lot of money gets angry,” he lamented, in addition to rejoicing that this firm resolution of the Civil Chamber “creates a valuable precedent in the defense of critical literary creation, especially at a time when the far right shamelessly displays its desire for censorship.” “If a lot of people laugh at fiction that has nothing to do with you, it’s because you identify with it. Conclusion: being lazy has harmful consequences.
