The Third Section of the Barcelona Court has acquitted the comedian Jaïr Domínguez of the hate crime for stating on the radio that fascism is fought with a punch in the mouth. The court frames these words within a satirical and political opinion space, and considers them protected by freedom of expression.
The resolution underlines one of the keys to the case. Despite Vox maintaining its request for two years in prison, understanding that the comment incited violence in a sensitive electoral context, the judges conclude that there was no real danger or sufficient potential to provoke aggression.
The Barcelona Court Rules Out Real Risk of Violence
The ruling holds that the requirements for the hate crime offense are not met because the message did not constitute direct incitement against specific individuals or against voters of any political party. The chamber interprets it as a satirical critique of fascism and Nazism.
Furthermore, the ruling highlights that it was a specific intervention in a humor space and not a discourse repeated over time. That framing is relevant in the criminal assessment of the comment.
The magistrates add that Domínguez's words lacked sufficient capacity to encourage violent acts. The resolution thus rejects that the phrase, by itself, fit the criminal offense for which he had been accused.
The Prosecutor's Office requested acquittal and Vox maintained two years in prison
During the proceeding, the Prosecutor's Office had already requested acquittal considering it was a humorous comment. The public ministry's position finally coincided with the criterion set by the Barcelona Court.
Vox, on the other hand, maintained the accusation and requested two years in prison for a hate crime. The party argued that the statements constituted incitement to violence given the moment they occurred.
In its reasoning, the court also took into account the police reports incorporated into the case. Those documents confirmed that no further incidents linked to the comedian's words occurred.
The ruling of the Third Section records precisely that point and notes that, after the broadcast of the comment, there were no subsequent events that allowed for the appreciation of a real risk derived from the radio intervention.