The Supreme Court has annulled the conviction of a Madrid resident who faced prison for satirical tweets about the death of Julen, the two-year-old boy who fell into a well in Totalán, Málaga, in January 2019. The court ruled that the posts, though insensitive, fell within the boundaries of freedom of expression and did not constitute a criminal offence against moral integrity.
The case concerned more than a dozen tweets published during and after the widely covered rescue operation. The messages joked about Julen’s fall and the rescue, including references to the discovery of his body. Translated from Spanish, examples included: “How could you fall so low, xxx”; “The well was made by a man, right? So, gender-based violence”; and “El Pozo cured meats sponsors this rescue.” Julen’s parents brought the matter to court. The defendant was initially sentenced to 18 months in prison and ordered to pay €6,000 in compensation. The Madrid Provincial Court later upheld the conviction.
The Supreme Court reversed those decisions, finding that the tweets, despite their effect on the family, were not aimed at Julen or his parents with the intent to harm them. The author argued that the posts were satirical commentary on the media’s coverage of the tragedy, not personal attacks, and the court accepted that distinction. Its reasoning stressed that criminal liability for an offence against moral integrity requires deliberate and serious intent to harm a specific person’s dignity. The judges found that intent had not been established in this case.
In assessing the messages, the court considered their context and intended target, along with their wording, drawing on precedents from Spain’s Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights. It noted that the author did not know the family and found that the posts instead criticized the media spectacle surrounding the rescue. The ruling also cited the Constitutional Court’s “Tour de la Manada” case, which stressed the importance of considering freedom of expression and creative freedom when evaluating controversial speech.
The Supreme Court found no basis for criminal liability but noted that civil proceedings remain possible. The family could pursue a claim over their rights to honor and image, potentially seeking financial compensation. The judges expressed solidarity with Julen’s parents and acknowledged the pain caused by the tweets. They concluded that criminal law should not punish speech that falls short of the threshold for a crime.
The decision comes amid continuing debate in Spain over free speech and the courts’ role in addressing offensive online content. Similar questions have arisen in other high-profile cases, including the prosecution of individuals accused of attacking political party headquarters, as reported in the Santander court’s recent move to prosecute suspects in the PSOE headquarters incident. The Julen ruling shows how difficult it can be to balance freedom of expression with personal dignity when speech circulates online and reaches a broad audience.
Spain’s legal system distinguishes between criminal and civil remedies for offensive speech. The case turned on whether the tweets met the criminal threshold for an attack on moral integrity; a separate civil claim could address alleged harm to reputation or rights to honor and image. The Supreme Court’s decision may inform future cases involving online satire and criticism tied to public tragedies. The Consejo General del Poder Judicial’s Centro de Documentación Judicial (CENDOJ) provides access to Spanish judicial decisions and jurisprudence.
