Prison For Journalist In Huelva Attacks Freedom Of Speech Says Press

The Court of Huelva has sentenced a journalist from Huelva to two years in prison, which has set ‘a dangerous precedent’ according to press associations

An unnamed journalist from Huelva has been sentenced by the Provincial Court of Huelva, in an unprecedented sentence, to two years in prison for ‘revealing secrets’ linked to the case of the murder of Laura Luelmo in El Campillo, according to Nuis Diario, Monday, June 3.

Recently, a court ruling has been based on article 197.3 of the Penal Code to impose a penalty on the professional reporter.

Specifically, this law states that imprisonment of two to five years is punishable if the data or facts discovered or the images captured are disseminated, disclosed or transferred to third parties and used to the detriment of the owner of the data or a third party.

And, according to the court, the journalist obtained information from the case file and disseminated it through newspaper articles. The judges considered that some of the details revealed were ‘unnecessary and irrelevant’ to the public interest and that they affected ‘the privacy of the victim and her family.’

Spanish Press Claim ‘Dangerous Precedent’

The Andalusian press associations express their absolute rejection of this ruling, because ‘it could set a dangerous precedent’ as it ‘directly attacks the constitutional right of citizens to receive truthful information, in this case, true information.’

It has left many deeply concerned ‘since it leaves to the free opinion of the judges the relevance of information,’ which, ‘as long as it is truthful, is protected by article 20 of our Magna Carta.’

They also point out that this ruling ‘opens the door to the establishment of a posteriori censorship in which journalists are judged after publishing information.’ It also opens the possibility that professionals could face prison sentences for revealing information considered ‘not relevant by judges.’

‘In the case in question, there was not even a secret investigation into the case and it was true information. Finally, they have stated that they reserve ‘as many protest actions as they consider appropriate’ to make this court ruling known to the public.

‘Not only because of the risks it poses for the free exercise of the journalistic profession, but also for the health of a democratic society.’