Current boundaries of the right to honour
It is explained that, in order to meet the requirement of truthfulness in the right to information, reasonable diligence in verifying the facts is sufficient, without requiring absolute truth (a line of reasoning stemming from the 1996 Constitutional Court ruling). This criterion now also extends to opinions and value judgements, which are protected by freedom of expression if they have a ‘sufficient factual basis’, even if they are not fully substantiated (Supreme Court Judgment 960/2024, Sociedad Española de Psiquiatría v. Comisión Ciudadana de Derechos Humanos).
Furthermore, freedom of artistic creation is addressed as a limitation on the right to honour: it is permissible to include unverified creative licence in works of fiction, as ruled in the case of Laureano Oubiña v. the producers of the series ‘Fariña’ (Supreme Court Ruling 5362/2025), as it is a work of fiction protected by artistic freedom.
This article analyses the doctrine of ‘neutral reporting’ (a media outlet that faithfully reproduces third-party statements is not liable for their content), as recently clarified by the Constitutional Court: it does not apply automatically when a media outlet publishes news produced by a news agency (the ABC/Atlas case), as the standard of journalistic diligence required is not generic (Constitutional Court Ruling 62/2025).
Finally, the quantification of compensation for infringements of personal rights is discussed, revealing a trend towards objectifying the amounts: the Mediaset v Alfonso Merlos case, in which the Supreme Court reduced the compensation from €800,000 to €150,000 on the grounds that it was disproportionate (Supreme Court Judgment 624/2025), and the Mediaset v María del Monte case, in which the criterion of repeat offences was introduced to justify an award of €200,000 (Supreme Court Judgment 697/2025).
Continue reading the article here