Right to Honor versus Freedom of Expression. Duel born in some sports fields and result in a Court of First Instance of Madrid, which has dismissed through a recent sentence the demand for protection of the right to honor presented by the coach of a basketball team as a result of the statements made by two former players of the team, in interviews granted to a national newspaper, in which they criticize the activity of said coach in the sports field, in relation to the feeding and weighing of the players and psychological abuse. The judge considers that the defendants are protected by their Right to Freedom of Expression, prevailing over the Right to Honor of the defendant.
In the first place, the judgment points out that the defendants cannot be held responsible for the treatment that the media gave to their interviews, nor for the writing of the headlines by the journalists who wrote the articles in which the interviews are inserted.
Collision of Rights
After analyzing the jurisprudential doctrine related to the collision between the Right to Honor of the defendant and the Freedom of Expression and Information of the defendants, the judge concluded that there has been no illegitimate interference in the right to honor of the plaintiff, and freedom must prevail. of expression that corresponds to the demands, which must be specially protected in a Rule of Law to form a plural public opinion.
Yes, in assessing the conflict between the two fundamental rights, the judgment provides that it is necessary to take into account the general interest of the information, the public nature of the people referred to in the news or criticism, and the circumstance of not having used terms indisputably vexatious to the person (applicant).
public relevance
Taking this into account, consider that in this case we are dealing with a matter of sporting interest and public relevance in which the people involved have a public profile, with relevant public and social notoriety, since the defendant was a national coach and the defendants are two very relevant figures of women's basketball.
In addition, as stated in the sentence, the players transmitted some facts without accompanying them with pejorative connotations that exceeded the limits of freedom of expression, in violation of the principle of proportionality.
Therefore, they have not used insults or expressions that are manifestly insulting or humiliating, that are unrelated or that are not necessary. On the contrary, the judge clarifies, the expressions uttered, in the context of the interviews carried out, fall within the framework of the right to freedom of expression.
The sentence emphasizes that what the defendant cannot claim is that no criticism is made of his activity in the sports field, since in no way in the interviews is any allusion made to his personal life nor is it contained, as has been pointed out, insult or insulting expression.
veracity
Likewise, the requirement of veracity was declared fulfilled because the facts transmitted, on which the defendants report, have the corresponding factual support, since it is not the disclosure of mere rumors. It should be noted that the element of truthfulness should not be assessed in terms of the opinions expressed.
In conclusion, the Judge considered that the expressions and statements made by the demands are protected by his Right to Freedom of Expression, prevailing over the Right to Honor of the defendant.
