The first civil verdict sentences the caller to publicly announce his punishment for repeated insults to another Internet user
Convictions of defamation reach the YouTube world. Court of First Instance No. 48 of Barcelona Marcos Pascual, better known as Nauterplay (309,000 subscribers) To spread Ten videos full of insults directed at Ismail Prigo, better known as Wismichu, Another netizen has his channel Over nine million followers. In a groundbreaking ruling, EL PERIÓDICO DE ESPAÑA has access, the court forces the former to remove the defamatory content released in ten videos against Wismichu and prevents him from insulting them again, but also from reading his reasons on his channel sentence.
According to the facts established in the judicial decision, Nauterplay used its channel against Wismichu to His direct insult phrases such as “a piece of shit,” bastard ” “idiots” coward & rdquoor; “The asshole” pig & rdquor; “mongol” and “subnormal”. The Judge Maria Jose Hernandez Gonzalez In its decision, it indicates that the aforementioned manifestations It is not protected by the right to freedom of expression And they are clear abusive and outrageousTherefore, it affects the plaintiff’s right to be honored.
In the first video titled “Wismichu completed”, His opponent stated that he hoped Priego would get a “good package” in the allegation of slander brought against him. He addressed him, “The coward, the bastard and the piece of bullshit.”
popularity Galician Youtube Derived from his ability to search networks for “the worst, the best,” as he put it, Prioritize eschatological, gory, and black humor. as an example “How to do reggaeton”, A video that has reached nearly 700,000 visits criticizing him Derived from the music industry.
Judgment execution procedures
As a result of the violation of the right to honor, the sentenced sentence obligates the YouTuber to remove defamatory content from his channel, to refrain from insulting Wismichu again in the future and To read the ruling on his YouTube channel. In addition, it ensures that this obligation is not circumvented in any way by the respondent and specifies that the narrative It must be done by the convict himself “in a clear and reasonable manner” And that the video should Make it public on your main channel for at least three months since its publication.
According to the sources consulted, The obligation to read the ruling in a YouTube video is heresy In this type of decision, since the convicted person is required to indicate each of the dates of the publication of the 10 videos that were declared defamation, publicly acknowledge that they have been convicted and state that in the future and under a court order, they can no longer address similar terms to the plaintiff. In addition, the judgment states that the convicted convict will have to Compensation of the plaintiff in the amount of 1500 euros.
After hearing the verdict, Prigot stated that for many years he and other creators had to take on hundreds of videos from channels like NauterPlay to defame and insult them, “Turn this practice into their livelihood.” He asserts that some defamation tools add thousands of videos of this type.
For this reason, it is estimated that the sentence proves it This type of content will have legal consequences for its creators. “We will continue to exercise our right to defend ourselves against this type of channel – as well as the famous ‘YouTuber’ -. Although YouTube allows its practices, it has been proven that justice does not. We already have more lawsuits and other trials in the near future. With other channels we hope to have the same results.”
Plaintiff’s attorney, David Bravo, He considers that the manner in which the judgment resolves one of the discussions raised is also pertinent to the matter and that Confirmed that Wismichu was just a character. “This defensive strategy also reveals how this type of channel sees the people it feeds on: just characters from a type of show who don’t feel and don’t suffer. But the sentence makes the obvious, that there is no such character, but the recipient of insults is a person. who is doing an activity under a pseudonym by which he is known.”