PDF   Print
Id
417
Title
The 'Manada Tour' case
Date
13/05/2025
Country
SPAIN (Europe)
Adjudication body
Constitutional Tribunal of Spain (Tribunal Constitucional de España)
Territorial scope
Domestic
Case number
46/2025
Main themes
Bullying or harassment
Hate speech
Hate speech - Sexism and misogyny
Incitement
Type of expression
Dark humour
Parody or pastiche
Website, blog, or online media
Branch of law
Criminal Law
Decision direction
Expands expression
Outcome
Exonerated
Relation to previous decision
Disagreement
Speaker
Artist or literary author
Comedian
Gender_Man
Public figure
Target
Collective target
Gender_Woman
Public figure
Link to analysis
Summary
This ruling concerned Anónimo García, the creator of the fake website tourlaManada.com -- a satirical performance critiquing media sensationalism. The site, active for just three days in December 2018, parodied a "tour" of locations tied to the La Manada case -- five men convicted of sexual aggression during Pamplona’s San Fermín festival. The creator was convicted under Article 173 of the Penal Code (crime against moral integrity) and sentenced to 18 months in prison, a ruling upheld by lower courts.

As stated in the disclaimer posted three days after the publication of the site, the website was designed as a "media bomb" ("bomba mediática") to expose how news outlets "pounce like hyenas on any corpse from which they can still suck warm blood". The fake tour, which never existed, parodied the media's frenzied coverage of the La Manada case, demonstrating how outlets amplify controversial stories for clicks, often at the expense of accuracy and sensitivity.

The Constitutional Court unanimously overturned the conviction, declaring it a violation of freedom of expression (Art. 20.1.a CE) and artistic creation (Art. 20.1.b CE). The Court emphasized the satirical nature of the work, noting that satire warrants broad protection under European human rights jurisprudence. It also highlighted the creator’s history of activist, ironic performances within the culture jamming movement, which critiques mass media. While acknowledging the website’s potential to offend, the Court affirmed that taste or sensitivity are not constitutional limits on free expression.
Thus, the final outcome was the annulment of all judicial decisions, with the Court affirming that the satirical intent and artistic context shielded the act from criminal liability.