The Supreme Court has confirmed the sentence imposed on a man who, through the social network X (formerly known as Twitter), published an offensive and threatening message against King Felipe VI.
The sentence ratifies the fine of 780 dollars for a crime of slight insults to the Crown, rejecting the allegation that his words were protected by freedom of expression.
Man fined for insulting King Felipe
The facts date back to March 18, 2020, when the monarch appeared on television to address the nation in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.
It was then that the defendant posted a tweet in Catalan in which he insulted the King and expressed desires for violence against him.
The content of the message, according to the sentence, went beyond a simple criticism of the monarchical institution, as it contained an explicit threat and a serious disparagement of the figure of the Head of State.
“Let’s cut this son of a bitch’s throat, we are taking too long,” was what the man wrote.
The Supreme Court has been clear in pointing out that freedom of expression has limits, especially when insults are used that do not add value to a political debate.
The ruling emphasizes that dissenting about the monarchy or any state institution is legitimate, but resorting to disqualifications and threats is not part of a valid exercise of this fundamental freedom.
In addition, the ruling recalls previous cases in which offensive expressions directed at public figures were considered crimes.
In this sense, the court argues that allowing this type of manifestations would damage political pluralism and democratic coexistence, since the debate should be based on arguments and not on insults or incitements to violence.
Finally, the Supreme Court has endorsed the proportionality of the sanction imposed, considering that the fine of 780 dollars, based on a daily fee of 6.50 dollars for 4 months, is adequate for the seriousness of the case.
According to the ruling, the Audiencia Nacional acted correctly in assessing the evident contempt for the King and the institution he represents, far exceeding what could be considered simple harsh criticism or annoying comments.
With this decision, the Supreme Court reaffirms the need to establish limits on the exercise of freedom of expression when this is distorted into insults and threats, thus guaranteeing a framework of respect within the public debate.