The arrest of the journalists who covered the Prado action sets off alarms about the right to information

More than 24 hours in detention and an open investigation for a crime against property, punishable by up to three years in prison. It is the invoice that, for the moment, leaves the Prado Museum’s climate protest to the two journalists who recorded and publicized the action of the environmental organization Futuro Vegetal. The reporters, collaborators of The jump, were there when two activists stuck their hands to the frames of the paintings ‘The Naked Maja’ and ‘The Dressed Maja’, by Francisco de Goya, and identified themselves as journalists to the art gallery staff, who asked them to stop recording , as reflected in the video released by the organization. On Sunday they were detained by the Police at their homes and at noon on Monday they were released.

Both her arrest and the accusation of property damage is a “nonsense”, according to jurists consulted by elDiario.es, who agree that the actions of the reporters are protected by the constitutional right to freedom of information, which enjoys a special protection. “The journalists were covering information of public interest. There is no evidence that there was a prior agreement in which different roles were distributed [con los activistas], so I don’t think the case has a future”, says Marisa Cuerda, Professor of Criminal Law at the Universitat Jaume I de València. “Whoever tells a news event is protected by the Constitution. Even though the activists ‘need’ public dissemination to fulfill their goals”, adds Joaquín Urías, professor of Constitutional Law and former lawyer of the Constitutional Court.

The crime that is indirectly attributed to both the activists and the journalists is clear. The Penal Code punishes those who cause “damage to property of historical, artistic, scientific, cultural or monumental value, or to archaeological, terrestrial or underwater sites” with a prison sentence of six months to three years or a fine of 12 to 24 months. . But the jurists consulted doubt that the involvement of the journalists can be proven. “Neither have they carried out the act –the two activists have done it as perpetrators– nor have they induced others, nor have they cooperated in its commission. At most, it could be said that they have cooperated in its dissemination, but that is not a crime”, explains Cuerda.

Lawyer Carlos Sánchez Almeida, legal director of the Platform in Defense of Freedom of Information (PDLI), agrees with the analysis. “A journalist exercising the right to freedom of information cannot in any way collaborate with the crime. Neither he nor he is an accomplice, nor a collaborator. One thing is the fact and another is the reflection of that fact, to bear witness to what is happening”, he assures. In addition, in his opinion, “the article of the Criminal Code that exempts from criminal responsibility those who act” in compliance with a duty or in the legitimate exercise of a right, office or position “would operate in any case.” “For the peace of mind of journalists, the right to freedom of information prevails over any other consideration,” says this expert.

precedents

It is common for some organizations to notify journalists so that they can publicize their acts of civil disobedience. It has happened in squatting of financial entities or private buildings, in feminist protests such as those carried out by the Femen collective, in actions such as those carried out by Greenpeace at the Hotel Algarrobico, a symbol of the destruction of the Mediterranean coast. It also happened in this case.

But the jurists maintain that the fact that it was a planned action and the journalists were previously warned does not have criminal relevance in this case either. “Only if the journalists participated in the act, helping to carry the glue or the activists to sneak in could they be charged. But not by narrating the event, even if they knew in advance what was going to happen”, says Urías. At this point, Sánchez Almeida recalls that journalists are protected by the constitutional right not to reveal their sources or to notify the authorities of the commission of crimes to protect those sources, unless these are very serious, which is not the case with the Prado protest.

Daniel Canales, an Amnesty International researcher, frames the Prado Museum protest as acts of civil disobedience that, in the opinion of this organization, are protected by the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly as long as they are carried out in a peaceful. And he shows “concern” for the disproportionate response that, on many occasions, people who “document” this type of civil disobedience receive from the authorities. Also police actions.

In fact, “disproportion” is the word used by the jurists consulted to refer to the actions of the authorities that have surrounded the work of the journalists in relation to this protest. “The detention is the typical example of disproportionate detention. They were located and at his home. There would have been no problem summoning them before the judge to testify or before the Police, if they were being investigated. It seems that they are stopped on Sunday as a form of punishment. To discourage them from doing it again or to punish them,” says Urías. And he adds: “Whoever reports a news event can never be prosecuted for that… Unless you want to discourage journalists from covering certain events.” Cuerda agrees that the arrest at their homes was a “nonsense.”

“Accomplices”, according to FAPE and APM

The opinion of the experts contrasts with that of the Federation of Associations of Journalists of Spain (FAPE) and the Madrid Press Association (APM), which considered this Monday that the journalists could be “accomplices” of the events and, therefore, Therefore, “they will have to respond” as citizens, reports Europa Press. “They have not been arrested for an act in which they exercised the profession, therefore we cannot speak of the right to information. The fact that they are journalists does not give them the license to carry out any type of action, such as, in this case, incivility. They have expressed themselves as citizens, not as journalists, and as citizens they will have to respond”, declared the president of FAPE, Miguel Ángel Noceda.

For its part, the Board of Directors of the APM differentiates between reporting as a journalist on an event to which it has been summoned or participating in the commission of a crime. In this sense, they are in favor of protecting the freedom of the press of a journalist who gives information about a fact. “Logically they have been summoned for it. As convened, for example for a demonstration before Congress. We would not accept that journalists be detained”, he points out.

However, they clarify that “what differentiates this case is that they have been summoned – if they were not part of the organization, as it seems – to account for a crime.” “In that case, if they don’t alert the police, they are accomplices rather than journalists. And the first prevails. In other words, if it is found that they were with the other two, we cannot come to their defense, ”he concludes.