Listen to the article
Spanish Left-Wing Media’s Call for Sanctions Against “Hate Speech” Raises Concerns of Hypocrisy
In a move criticized as contradictory, several left-wing Spanish media outlets and journalists have issued a manifesto calling on the government to implement “legal reforms that allow for sanctions and the withdrawal of public funding from those who spread hate and lies in an organized manner.” The petition has drawn attention for what observers characterize as a classic case of psychological projection—accusing others of behaviors the accusers themselves exhibit.
The manifesto emerges just weeks after Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez threatened regulatory action against social media platforms, using the fight against “hate” as justification. Critics argue this represents a concerning pattern of attempting to censor opposing viewpoints under the guise of combating harmful content.
Spain’s legal framework already contains provisions against false information when it infringes upon an individual’s right to honor. These laws apply universally and have been successfully used against some of the very media outlets that signed the manifesto calling for additional restrictions.
El Plural, a digital newspaper with strong ties to Sánchez’s socialist government, was ordered by Spain’s Supreme Court in 2012 to pay damages of €1,800 to Francisco José Alcaraz and €900 to his wife, Mamen Álvarez, for publishing false information. The ruling also required El Plural to publish the judgment on its website.
Similarly, the far-left newspaper Público, another signatory closely aligned with Sánchez’s administration, was condemned by a Madrid court in December 2023 for publishing false information about journalists Eduardo Inda and Esteban Urreiztieta. Público was ordered to pay €5,000 in compensation, remove the false story, and publish the court’s decision.
The Context and Action Foundation, a key promoter of the recent manifesto, maintains connections to the leftist digital newspaper CTXT. In April 2024, CTXT published a separate manifesto characterizing judicial and journalistic investigations into Begoña Gómez, the Prime Minister’s wife, as a “judicial and media coup” and “an attempt to subvert the popular will expressed at the ballot box through illicit means.”
Months after that publication, Gómez was formally charged with five alleged crimes, including influence peddling, corruption, misappropriation, practicing without a license, and embezzlement. Her case stemmed from allegations that she leveraged her position for advantage in private business dealings.
CTXT has also been criticized for spreading misleading information about the conservative Vox party, attempting to link it with neo-Nazi groups despite clear rejections from those same groups, which described Vox as “a liberal center-right party, pro-NATO, pro-EU, and Zionist.”
The apparent contradiction between these media outlets’ past conduct and their current advocacy for sanctions against “disinformation” raises significant questions about the true intent behind the manifesto. Critics argue it represents an attempt to silence legitimate political opposition and shield government officials from scrutiny rather than a genuine effort to improve public discourse.
Political observers note that the use of anti-hate speech legislation as a mechanism for controlling political speech has become increasingly common in Spain and across Europe, creating tension between the legitimate need to combat harmful content and concerns about protecting free expression and press freedom.
The situation highlights ongoing debates about who determines what constitutes “hate” or “disinformation” in a polarized political climate, and whether government-imposed sanctions risk becoming tools for suppressing legitimate criticism of those in power.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
10 Comments
This seems like a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. If these outlets have a history of spreading disinformation themselves, their credibility on this issue is questionable.
Exactly. Trying to censor others while being guilty of the same offense reeks of hypocrisy.
Interesting development. While disinformation is a serious issue, we should be cautious of media outlets trying to censor opposing views under the guise of ‘combating hate.’ Healthy debate is essential for a free society.
You raise a good point. Striking the right balance between preventing genuine harm and protecting free speech is always challenging.
This is a complex issue without easy solutions. On one hand, the spread of false information can be damaging. But on the other, overzealous censorship can also undermine democratic discourse. I hope they find a measured approach.
Agreed. Maintaining transparency and accountability for all media outlets, regardless of political leanings, seems crucial here.
I’m curious to learn more about the specific inaccuracies these outlets have been criticized for in the past. Transparency and fact-checking are so important, regardless of political ideology.
That’s a fair question. The past conduct of these outlets will be key in evaluating the merits of their current position.
While the fight against disinformation is important, using it as a pretext to silence opposing views is very concerning. I hope the government maintains a principled stance in upholding free speech.
Well said. Vigilance is needed to ensure genuine accountability, not partisan censorship.