This is a translated version of an article originally published by Carlos Berbell in Spanish, in the most read and renowned legal newspaper in Spain, CONFILEGAL.

Freedom of expression includes criticisms of the conduct of those against whom they are directed, even when such criticisms may be unsavory and cause annoyance, disturbance or disgust, as long as it serves the public interest and does use expressions that are not manifestly injurious or vexatious.

As a guarantee of a free public opinion, the rights to freedoms of expression and of information are essential. This is a prerequisite for pluralism and tolerance, as well as an openness that is essential to a democratic society.

The Fourteenth Section of Madrid’s Provincial Court reached this conclusion in its appeal ruling. It overturned the lower court decision and cleared the Church of Scientology associations Citizens Commission on Human Rights International – registered California, USA – and Citizens Commission on Human Rights of Spain – registered Spain – of the charge of unlawful interference with Spanish psychiatrists’ honour.

“Church whose axis revolves about Dianetics, which is regarded as a true science distinct from psychiatry.The psychiatrist has described the fight against which the group has been engaged. Thomas Szasz Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry, Syracuse University, New York. Recognized critic of the scientific and moral foundations of psychiatry. One of the leading figures in anti-psychiatryConfilegal had access to a court ruling dated 10th February.

According to the magistrates Maria del Rosario Campesino Temprano, Juan Uceda Ojeda -rapporteur- and Jesus Alemany EguidazuThe Spanish Society of Psychiatry, the plaintiff, must bear all criticisms, no matter how harsh.

In its ruling, the court stated that “we do not believe we can accept the right to honor should prevail over the right to freedom expression in the health field.”

The ruling of the Provincial Court of Madrid confirms that there has not been an illegitimate invasion nor an injury to all psychiatrists who are SEP members, as claimed by the SEP.

In this case, Article 20 of Spanish Constitution must prevail.

It refers to the jurisprudence of the Spanish Constitutional Court, contained in the judgments 216/2013 of 19 December and the judgments of the Civil Chamber of the Spain Supreme Court, 375/2013 of 5 June, as well as 5/2014 of 14 January and 423/2014 of 30 July.

Professor of Procedural law at Carlos III University was the representative of the American association. Victor Moreno Catena. Lawyers represented the Spanish association Isabel Ayuso Puente You can also find out more about the following: Gregorio Arroyo Hernansanz. And the SEP by Carles Vendrell CervantesUria Menendez

Both associations were previously condemned by the head of Madrid’s 59th Court of First Instance on 19 November 2021. He had ordered the ban of publications on www.cchr.org.es and www.ccdh.es, in which they harshly criticized psychiatrists.

This ruling has overturned a previous one.

The right to freedom of expression must prevail

The Madrid Provincial Court tribunal analyses the six articles that, according to SEP, would support an alleged illegal interference with the right of honour of all of its members.

The first says that Psychopaths are psychiatrists Because their treatments harm the body and mind They also degrade the individual. They also claim psychiatry as a pseudo-science which does not cure mental illnesses and that its treatments are often imposed on people without their consent.

“We consider that in the context of anti-psychiatric theory followed by defendant entities, which, we must assume, is well known to all psychiatrists. The phrase used by the plaintiff association could not harm the honor of the professionals, and in any event, it would be protected under the right to freedom to expression.“, says the ruling.

In the second, the author says that it’s not the doctors and pharmaceutical companies but Behind it all, there are psychiatrists and psychiatry.

“Pharmaceutical firms rely on experts in the field of psychology for their authority.” A false authority is one that solves problems in their field, but only covers up symptoms with their treatments. They either depress or excite the consciousness of a person with powerful harmful drugs, which force, like poisons the body and mind into deterioration.”

The court’s assessment seems to be very clear:Some of the terms or expressions that have been deemed offensive could imply that economic profit is more important than the purpose of healing and therapy. We do not accept that the right of honour should be given precedence when compared to the right to freedom to expression in the health field.“.

The third person says that psychiatry is a story of failure. “Psychiatrists still have a bad reputation among their medical colleagues. They are called bumbling, and second-rate” and “Psychiatry has probably been the most destructive force in society over the last 60 years,” According to Edward Shorter You can also find out more about the following: Dr Thomas Szasz.

The court says, “The alleged offence is”The issue stems from the fact that the practice of forced and involuntary treatment and institutionalisation without the consent or the patients is still being carried out.Thomas Szasz is one of the founding members of the Citizens Commission on Human Rights, as we already stated.“.

“We find no reason for us to believe that this publication is an illegal interference with the right of honour of SEP Members,” he continues.

“We believe the statements contained in this article are merely consequences or deductions from principles already defended and known by the various antipsychiatry groups that exist, which we believe the members of plaintiff association are well aware of.”

Fourth article “Drugs are a major problem in our world“. The plaintiff believes that the plaintiff’s honor is damaged by the claim that psychiatrists’ diagnosis are fraudulent, and that they are used to ‘deceive people who are in perfect mental health’ in order to be prescribed psychiatric medications.“.

This article, like the second publication of the three magistrates’, “The work of psychiatrists has been criticised again by denying their authority and the effectiveness of their treatments, and by using drugs to treat so-called mental disorders that are on the rise and which have allowed pharmaceutical products to be extended to different spheres.“.

“If we can find words which could be offensive to some doctors, by accusing them that they have abandoned the curative purpose but, from reading the entire article, it can be easily seen that it is part of a criticism of social disorders in every field of life, that the author of this publication believes are caused by drugs. We believe that the clash between fundamental rights should tilt towards freedom of speech“, they insist.

The two texts below refer to two open letters. The first is addressed to primary care physicians, and the second is addressed to medical students..

The first accuses psychiatric doctors of using a plague drugs that cause mental holocausts and accuses them to not comply with the Hippocratic Oath.

The article reiterates the same theme: that the treatment with psychotropic drugs, which has been extended to general practitioners causes serious addictive effects, the annihilation and destruction of mental health and addictive effects, and mental holocaust with no appreciable result.

“But the judges emphasize that it is addressed to primary-care doctors, not psychiatrists.So that no attack on SEP members’ honour can be seen“.

PSYCHIATRISTS CRITICISED for not complying with the HIPPOCRATIC oath

In the open letter addressed to students, it is also pointed out that psychiatrists have been accused of not adhering to the Hippocratic Oath.

The author of this article, a medical doctor who is a member of Citizens’ Commission on Human Rights explains why he believes that the Specialization in psychiatry He believes that it shouldn’t be chosen. Lacks a scientific foundationThe biological tests used to prove mental illness are only collaborative. The diagnoses are purely theoretical, not rigorously validated, and have too broad definitions.

In this letter the court refers to “We only see a new criticism against psychiatry, and the use pills in its treatmentWe do not see any sentences or expressions which are an obvious attack on the honour of psychiatrists or an illegitimate intrusion. If such an attack had been made, it would have been protected by freedoms of expression.“.

The latest text, entitled “Psiquiatria, pseudociencia y sanidad pubica” (Psychiatry and pseudoscience in public healthThe document, authored by lawyer Luis de Miguel Ortega contains a series of insults and disqualifications aimed at psychiatrists which should be considered as “inadmissible”.

Sentences like “Psychiatry is a tool of social control that can be used to exact revenge on people.“; “The psychiatrist is the person who, in a way that is absolutely illegal, sends a fake fax to the Court requesting an involuntary committal.Without the urgency required, in the face less restrictive measures, and even for egoistic reasons such as “he hasn’t been to my surgery for many months.”“”; or “In Spain, there are an unknown number of coercive terminations performed by psychiatrists who don’t want the public to see the horrors that a child suffers when born after the mother has taken psychiatric medications.“.

What the court has concluded:We continue to believe we are in a conflict where freedom of speech must prevailWe believe that the statements in the article are merely consequences or inferences to principles already defended and known by the members of plaintiff association. The most acidic and vexatious statements are also directly related to the legitimate goal, which can be protected by freedom expression.“.

The SEP is responsible for the costs, but it can still appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.