Madrid tries Pablo Echenique over his tweet about priests and migrants and leaves the case pending verdict

The proceedings against Pablo Echenique over a tweet about priests and migrants mark a new episode in the relationship between politics, social media and freedom of expression. The case, closely followed in Madrid, focuses attention on how ironic messages are interpreted in public debate. The ruling could influence future discussions about what can and cannot be said on social media.

The trial of Pablo Echenique, a former Podemos MP, has once again brought to the fore the tension between freedom of expression and the limits of political speech on social media. The hearing, held this Friday at the Audiencia Provincial de Madrid, follows a complaint by the association Abogados Cristianos over a tweet in which Echenique was ironic about the relationship between priests and sexual offences, in response to statements by the Archbishop of Oviedo linking migration and crime.

In May 2024, Archbishop Jesús Sanz sparked controversy by saying in an interview that the regularisation of migrants could facilitate the entry of “undesirable” people and by associating immigration with serious crimes. Echenique, on X, replied that, from a statistical point of view, a priest was more likely to commit a sexual offence than a migrant was to commit a crime, and added that, in terms of public safety, deporting priests would be more effective than tightening migration policy.

The post was reported by Abogados Cristianos, which accuses Echenique of inciting hatred and is seeking one year in prison. However, neither the prosecution nor the defence considers that a crime exists and both seek an acquittal. Echenique's lawyer also asks that the association bear the costs of proceedings that have lasted two years.

During the trial, Echenique explained that his tweet was intended to put two claims that he considers absurd on an equal footing: criminalising migrants and generalising about priests. He maintained that his message was ironic and that taking it literally would lead to complex situations. The presiding judge, Adela Viñuelas, was at the centre of a tense moment when she rejected testimony from two EL PAÍS journalists proposed by the defence to provide context for the tweet, arguing that it was not necessary at that time to analyse the number of abuse cases in the Church.

The Defensor del Pueblo, Ángel Gabilondo, appeared as a witness to explain the report on abuse in the Church, although the prosecution tried to show that the report did not justify Echenique's post. The judge limited the questioning, considering that the report was already part of the proceedings. For its part, the Ministerio Público insisted that not everything that is hateful constitutes a hate crime and argued that the message falls within the sphere of political confrontation, where freedom of expression has broad scope.

The prosecution's lawyer, Polonia Castellanos, argued that the tweet stigmatised priests and reflected Echenique's animosity towards the Church. The trial was concluded for judgment, with the former MP reiterating that he does not hate the Catholic Church.

The Audiencia Provincial de Madrid, where this trial was held, is one of the usual settings for major media cases in the city. Located at the heart of the capital's judicial district, its activity reflects the pulse of the social and political debates running through Madrid. In recent years, this court has witnessed cases that have shaped the public agenda and influenced public perceptions of the limits of freedom of expression and the role of social media in political life. Madrid is already beginning to move in that direction, where every word online can echo in the courts.

Pablo Echenique trial confirmed (27 Mar 2026, Audiencia Provincial Madrid): Abogados Cristianos seeks 1 year in prison for the hate/discrimination offence over a May 2024 tweet ("Statistically, a priest is more likely to sexually assault a minor than a migrant is to commit a crime; deporting priests > tightening migration policy") responding to Archbishop of Oviedo Jesús Sanz Montes (immigration=crime).

Prosecution + defence: acquittal ("not everything hateful=a crime; political irony; no real danger").

EL PAÍS journalist witnesses rejected (Viñuelas); Ángel Gabilondo (Defensor del Pueblo) testified on Church abuse report. Concluded for judgment.