The Spanish Constitution, in its Article 20, enshrines the right to freedom of information as a fundamental right, on par with the right to honor, personal and family privacy, and one’s own image. However, the clash between these rights requires a detailed analysis in each case, as freedom of information does not always prevail over the protection of individuals’ privacy or honor.
In the past, journalism was viewed as a service to the State, with officially registered journalists and media controlled by the public administration. However, Article 20 of the Constitution does not limit this right exclusively to journalists; any citizen can exercise the freedom of information, as affirmed by jurisprudence. This freedom, however, does not mean that any publication is automatically protected under the right to information.
Limit of the Right to Information: Privacy and Truthfulness
For a fact to be considered newsworthy, it must impact the public interest, beyond mere curiosity. Public figures, such as politicians, athletes, or celebrities, have to put up with greater public exposure. However, their right to privacy still exists, and journalism has its limit in individuals’ private lives, protected by Article 18 of the Constitution.
The Organic Law 1/1982, on the protection of the right to honor, privacy, and one’s own image, establishes that a person’s privacy depends on the level of their desire for public exposure. Those who put themselves on public display, such as through interviews or television programs, partially waive their right to privacy, but do not lose it completely.
Furthermore, any information disseminated must be truthful. Although absolute truth is not required, journalists have a duty to seek information diligently, verifying their sources and contrasting it appropriately. Negligence in this process, such as spreading rumors without verifying their truthfulness, can have legal consequences.
Damage to Honor and Legal Protection
When published information is inaccurate or distorted, it can severely affect the honor of the person involved, causing what is known as moral damage. This damage may extend to psychological integrity, causing distress or anxiety. The avenues for reparation of this type of injury to honor can be both civil and criminal. However, the criminal route requires demonstrating not only the violation of the right but also the intent of the informant in disseminating false information or showing reckless disregard for the truth.
A relevant example is the recent ruling from the Barcelona Criminal Court No. 14, dated June 26, 2024, which convicted a paparazzi for harassment and psychological injury to a footballer’s partner. The court imposed a six-month prison sentence for each offense, a restraining order, and compensation for medical expenses and moral damage amounting to ten thousand euros.
The Crime of Harassment and Its Implications
The ruling also highlights the investigative method used by the photojournalist. When surveillance and monitoring exceed the limits of minor annoyance and affect the private and daily life of the victim, it constitutes a crime of harassment. The 2023 reform of the Criminal Code reduced the requirements for this behavior to be considered a crime, eliminating the requirement that the alteration of the victim’s life be “serious.” It is now sufficient to demonstrate that the victim’s daily normality has been disrupted.
In cases of harassment, it is also common for victims to suffer psychological injuries, such as anxiety or stress, for which the harasser must be held criminally liable.
Ultimately, the confrontation between the right to information and the right to privacy requires a careful balance between media freedom and the protection of private life, especially in cases where moral and psychological damage is evident.
As we can see, maintaining harmony between investigative work and ensuring that all this information-gathering activity does not turn into an invasion of a person’s most subjective sphere, their privacy, is no easy task. The boundary between these two rights is almost imperceptible. However, in the current times, it is questionable whether the right to honor is treated with the same importance in the courts as the right to information. At the very least, the aforementioned ruling serves as a reminder that not everything is permissible in the pursuit of information.
Ángela Martín Ruiz
