The combination of media and legal pressure has led to the threat of resignation of a government president. The destructive impact of misinformation and personal media attacks on individuals in their private sphere is serious, but turning misinformation into judicial evidence crosses red lines, not only of the judiciary, but of journalistic ethics. A judge who accepts a news story as evidence not only goes against Supreme Court jurisprudence, but reflects the enormous discretion of a judge to administer justice politically. The idea that judicial matters are political should not scandalize us, as advanced in the seventies by Duncan Kennedy, a Law professor at Harvard University. What is concerning is the explicit manipulation of political matters to administer justice. Thus, political communication, in line with journalistic ethics, must have specific legislative measures to prevent misinformation and protect individuals, whether or not they are government presidents.
Misinformation occurs when certain economic or political interest groups strategically use the press to manipulate, attacking not only public life but also personal integrity and private life of politicians, especially those associated with the left, as was evident in the case of Irene Montero, among others. In these cases, it is also a form of violence against the person through the so-called “depersonalization of the victim”, mostly women, sometimes in the environment of men, as in the case of Begoña Gómez. Depersonalization of the political subject is the objectification process by which the media portray political figures not as individuals with rights, responsibilities, and public dignity, but as mere symbols of ideologies or policies, making them an easy target for public hostility. This fuels a cycle of criticism and insults that instead of debating ideas or their public activity attacks the rights of the person.
It is important to note that attacks on women are usually central and they are targeted with greater acrimony. This is evident in the case involving Begoña Gómez, the wife of the government president, but it is a global issue seen with cases like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in the United States, Sanna Marin in Finland, or Francia Márquez in Colombia. Misinformative journalism not only undermines democratic principles of respect and rational debate but also poses significant risks to the mental health and security of those in politics. By doing so, these media attacks not only affect the individuals involved but also erode the quality of public discourse, fostering a political environment where truth and moral quality are the first victims, not to mention the wear and tear this generates in citizens by generating disaffection towards politics.
To prevent misinformation from becoming ammunition for lawfare, we need legislation that effectively addresses misinformation and personal attacks, protecting both public debate and public figures. A law that establishes clear boundaries between constitutionally acceptable speech and defamation, and facilitates policy debates rather than personal attacks. Political communication cannot be a field without fences. The right to truthful information is a fundamental pillar of democracy, emphasized by both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 and the Spanish Constitution. The question is whether freedom of expression should be excluded as a legal argument when the media disseminate unverifiable facts or fake news. Misinforming is spreading confusing or unverifiable information that infringes on the right to information.
In Spain, the Law 13/2002 or Law of Information Society Services and Law 14/1966 of Press and Printing, created during the Franco dictatorship, do not specifically and effectively address the challenges posed by misinformation or the challenges of social networks and the digital environment. Despite the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Court, and the European Court of Human Rights emphasizing the protection of the right to honor against freedom of expression, especially when false or injurious information is disseminated, the absence of a coherent legal framework, both nationally and European, presents significant gaps that are exploited by certain media outlets, facilitating controversial actions, like those of Judge Juan Carlos Peinado, who has admitted the complaint against Begoña Gómez. Nevertheless, despite the Penal Code not being the most appropriate resource in a civilized society, it should be used more to prevent misinformation and protect the right to truthful and verified information.
Furthermore, the Penal Code could be clearer regarding the use of misinformation by describing offenses that protect the exercise of fundamental rights and public freedoms. Penalizing the dissemination of information that directly or indirectly supports discrimination, hatred, or violence against groups or associations. We cannot get used to xenophobic, misogynistic, homophobic, or stigmatizing discourses, especially less so from political representation spaces. due to the little importance many media give to civil or economic sanctions, which they already include in their possible costs, Article 515 of the Penal Code should be rethought to include companies, interest groups, and individuals that promote discrimination, hatred, or violence. A legal reform or a jurisprudential interpretation in that direction would directly address acts of disseminating false information with the intention of harming the reputation or rights of others, proposing sanctions that could include significant fines or even prison sentences. This should not exclude the possibility of defining misinformation as a crime against the right to information. A step that would not only update the legal framework to reflect the current digital reality but also strengthen the mechanisms for protecting fundamental rights, providing a clearer and more direct tool to combat the negative impact of fake news in the field of political communication.
By doing so, Spain would not only be protecting the individual rights of its citizens but also strengthening its democracy by promoting a cleaner and fairer information environment. This measure would be a crucial step in adapting legislation to the challenges of the 21st century, ensuring that the principles of truth and justice prevail in the public sphere. We hope that Pedro Sánchez’s reflection brings about these reforms. The obvious support he received from many political spaces and civil society called for changes because, as he stated in his declaration, this cannot be a continuation, it must be a new chapter. Isabel Mastrodomenico is a sociologist, a master’s graduate in Media and Global Communication (SOAS University of London) and Gender Equality (UCM), a Ph.D. candidate in Political Communication, and director of the Communication and Gender Agency.
