Can an influencer be sentenced to closing his or her account

shetu24

The Supreme Court has stated that it is possible for a conviction to impose as an accessory penalty (of a limited duration in time) the closure of an account on a content dissemination platform. (such as YouTube, Twitch, Instagram or Twitter), as well as the prohibition of creating another account on said platform, based on article 48 of the Penal Code . We can help you At Dexia Abogados we are lawyers specializing in criminal law in Madrid . If you need a criminal law firm with extensive experience, contact us and find out without obligation . CONTACT US Index The facts What does the Supreme Court say? Can not only physical places or spaces but also virtual meeting and communication spaces that are created on the Internet be considered a "place of commission of the crime", for the purposes of article 48 of the CP? Why is the scene of the crime YouTube and not the physical place where the influencer delivered the cookies to the homeless man? Conclusions The facts This resolution derives from an episode that generated enormous rejection in Spanish society.

YouTuber recorded and broadcast on his YouTube channel, as a challenge, how he offered Oreo cookies filled with toothpaste to a homeless person living on the street, who ended up eating them. The episode unfolded with various mockery from the influencer. This video went viral and led to the opening of criminal proceedings against the YouTuber, who was sentenced by the Criminal Court No. 9 of Barcelona to 15 months in prison for a crime against moral integrity provided for in the article 173.1 of the Penal Code. In addition, he was sentenced to the accessory penalty of closing his YouTube DM Databases channel and prohibiting him from creating another channel on that platform for a period of 5 years. The Court justified the imposition of this sentence by explaining that YouTube could be understood as “the place where the crime was committed” and that article 48.1 CP allows the prisoner to be prohibited from going to the place where the crime was committed, for a certain period of time.



The influencer appealed that sentence and the Provincial Court of Barcelona agreed with him: the closure of his channel could not be imposed as an accessory penalty, nor the prohibition of using another, since this penalty was not expressly provided for in article 48.1 of the Penal Code. What does the Supreme Court say? As a result of the appeals filed against the ruling of the Provincial Court of Barcelona, ​​the Supreme Court has had to resolve the following dilemma: Can not only physical places or spaces but also virtual meeting and communication spaces that are created on the Internet be considered a "place of commission of the crime", for the purposes of article 48 of the CP? The response given by the Supreme Court follows a meticulous logical-deductive process, very consistent with the current social and criminal reality: Firstly, it analyzes the meaning of the word “place” provided by the Royal Academy of the Spanish Language and concludes that.