Supreme Court acquits social media user over Julen well tragedy posts

The high court ruled that while the comments posted on X (formerly Twitter) demonstrated a clear "lack of sensitivity" toward the family of two-year-old Julen, they did not constitute a crime against moral integrity.

The judgment overturns previous rulings by a Madrid criminal court and the Provincial Court, which had ordered the unnamed man to pay €6,000 in compensation to the child's grieving parents.

Julen died in January 2019 after falling down an illegal borehole in Totalán, Malaga, triggering a high-profile, fortnight-long rescue operation that gripped the nation.

The defendant argued his posts were satirical epigrams criticising the intense media circus surrounding the rescue efforts rather than direct attacks on the family or the child.

Supreme Court magistrates agreed, stating the user intended to mock the news coverage rather than harm the victims, whom he did not know.

"If there is no direct target of the offense, there is no attack on moral integrity, and the conduct falls under freedom of expression," the court stated.

Judges emphasised that for an act to qualify as a crime against moral integrity, it must involve a severe, direct, and usually repeated attack intended to degrade a specific victim.

To support its decision, the Supreme Court cited European Court of Human Rights standards alongside a 2025 Constitutional Court precedent involving satirical posts about the 2016 Pamplona group sexual assault.

In that case, judges ruled that despite low empathy and the severity of the offense, expressions must still be evaluated through the lens of free speech and creative freedom.

While clearing the man of criminal charges, the Supreme Court noted that the family could still pursue civil compensation for damages to their honour and personal image.