Insults to Athletes on Networks: Hate Crimes

Digital abuse of athletes is a growing phenomenon that has generated specific criminal responses. Massive insults on social networks —after a failure, defeat, questioned refereeing decision— may fit into hate crimes (Art. 510 CP) when discriminatory motivation concurs (racism, xenophobia, homophobia), or in libel and slander aggravated by distribution when crimes are imputed or seriously harmful contempt expressions are uttered. Threats and coercion of death or physical aggression configure autonomous types of Chapter II of Title VI CP.

Criminal Types Applicable to Sports Insults

Not every insult on networks is the same offense, and getting the qualification right is decisive. When a discriminatory motivation concurs —racist, xenophobic, antisemitic, homophobic or based on national origin— the fact constitutes the hate crime of Art. 510 CP, punishable by imprisonment of 1 to 4 years and a fine. If there is no discriminatory motive but a crime is attributed or seriously harmful expressions to honor are uttered, libel or slander (Arts. 205 to 211 CP) come into play, aggravated when disseminated publicly. And threats or coercion (death, aggression) constitute autonomous types. The choice between the hate crime —of greater reproach but requiring proof of the motive— and aggravated libel —easier to prove— is one of the prosecution's first strategic decisions.

Author Identification on Internet

The first step of the prosecution is identifying the author. The procedures are: (1) judicial requirement to the platform (X/Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, TikTok) to provide data of the account holder and IP addresses of publications; (2) requirement to the corresponding ISP to identify the connection holder; (3) in anonymous accounts, open-source (OSINT) analysis and, where appropriate, European cooperation under the Digital Services Act (DSA). The process is standardized but usually takes 3 to 6 months. When the author resides abroad, identification proceeds through international cooperation (Budapest Convention on cybercrime, requests for judicial assistance), with longer times and a degree of cooperation that varies by country.

Cooperation with Platforms

The effectiveness of the action depends to a large extent on the cooperation of the platforms. The DSA reinforces their duties of diligence and of removal of manifestly unlawful content following a substantiated notification, and articulates points of contact for the authorities' requirements. The strategy combines two planes: the platform's own moderation route —faster for achieving the removal of the content and halting the viral spread— and the judicial route —indispensable for obtaining the author's identification data, which the platform only cedes upon an order—. Coordinating both requirements from the outset shortens the deadlines and preserves the evidence before the content disappears.

Criminal Action and Compensation

The athlete's private prosecution must articulate: (a) criminal complaint with qualification appropriate to content (510 CP if there is hate motivation; aggravated libel if not); (b) civil action ex delicto for compensation; (c) precautionary removal request of content; (d) sentence publication where appropriate. The civil compensation of LO 1/1982 repairs the moral damage with indicative amounts that depend on the dissemination and the seriousness. When the identified author has a limited patrimonial profile, the effective compensation may be modest, but the criminal conviction with publicity, the removal of the content and the deterrent effect are usually the athlete's main objective.

Defense Against Imputation

From the side of the imputed author, the axis of the defense is the border between legitimate sporting criticism and the criminal offense. Freedom of expression protects harsh, even very negative, criticism of an athlete's performance or of a refereeing decision; what it does not protect is the personal insult, the threat or hate speech. The defense may argue the atypicality of the expression when it stays in the realm of opinion about the sporting activity, dispute the concurrence of the discriminatory motive that Art. 510 CP requires, or question the authorship when the account is shared or may have been impersonated. Each message is analyzed in its context, because the same word may be protected criticism or an insult depending on how, where and against whom it is uttered.