Can be politically discrepted from former Cantabrian President Miguel Ángel Revilla, But of course his criticisms of King Emeritus are not injurious, defamant or oprobious expressions, because qualifying the previous head of the state of “fiscal evasor” or “carrier” is, regardless of the language used, Describe reality. Therefore, the lawsuit filed by Juan Carlos to Revilla, who claims 50,000 euros He says he would donate to Caritas does not seem to have too much route. The mere demand is a mistake, because the Supreme Court has made it clear that politicians and authorities must understand that their right to honor can be affected by public opinions and more in the case at hand.
Revilla’s freedom of expression, even more when expressed, beyond the literalness of what has been said, is true, is above the opinion that these statements deserve to King Emeritus. It can be discussed whether or not dialectical excesses in the statement by the former president of Cantabriabut of course it is indisputable that he said nothing that is not radically true, because calling Juan Carlos “Fiscal Evasor” It is not distorting reality, but portraying it.
Of course, King Emeritus is in his perfect right to claim Revilla 50,000 euros for understanding that he has violated his honorbut the Cantabrian president is also in his perfect right to express his opinion on the behavior of Juan Carlos, which by the way is something that is being done constantly in social, political and journalistic fields.
The figure of the emeritus is not untouchable and what is manifested by Revilla, with more or less success, It is not at all injurious or slanderousfor the simple reason that slander implies falsely imputing the commission of a crime and insult refers to expressions that undermine a person’s dignity or reputation. There is no slander because There is no falsehood in what is said by Revilla And there is no injury because the dignity of the head of the State undermined it.
