Spanish Court Upholds Acquittal in Instagram ‘Escort’ Identity Disclosure Case

The Spanish Supreme Court has affirmed the acquittal of a woman who shared the Instagram profile details – including photographs, a mobile number, and username – of an individual offering escort services in Ibiza. The court ruled that the actions did not constitute a crime against moral integrity, as the revealed activity was not illegal and was publicly accessible, albeit under a pseudonym.

Details of the Case

The case dates back to June 2017, when the accused posted a story on her Instagram profile (which had 710 followers) revealing information about the complainant. Alongside the details, the accused added the phrase “Poca dignidad” (Little dignity) and included information sourced from Google regarding escort services available in Ibiza. The complainant, who wished to keep this aspect of her life private from family and friends, subsequently experienced a mixed adaptation disorder requiring medical treatment and resulting in 274 days of work incapacity, with post-traumatic effects.

Initial Ruling and Appeal

Initially, a Penal Court in Bilbao sentenced the accused to nine months in prison and ordered her to pay €10,220 in damages to the complainant. Even though, the Provincial Court of Vizcaya overturned this decision, arguing that the act of publicizing the information on Instagram did not meet the legal threshold for “inflicting” a degrading treatment as defined in Article 173.1 of the Spanish Criminal Code, nor did it cause a sufficiently severe moral injury.

Supreme Court’s Rationale

The Supreme Court upheld the Provincial Court’s decision. The court emphasized that a crime against moral integrity requires a degrading treatment that gravely undermines a person’s dignity, prohibiting their objectification or instrumentalization. The court found that the accused revealed an activity that was not unlawful or false and was already accessible on social media, even if under a pseudonym. The court determined that there was no coercion or imposition involved, and the conduct did not meet the criteria of being brutal or cruel as required by the penal code.

The ruling underscores the complexities of balancing freedom of expression with the right to privacy and moral integrity in the digital age.