Freedom of expression is one of the fundamental pillars of any democracy. Precisely for this reason it deserves to be protected. But it also deserves to be exercised responsibly.
In a society based on human rights, freedom of expression cannot become an alibi to spread historical stigmas that have served for decades to justify discrimination and violence against entire groups.
The recent headline of a column published by El Mundo, which establishes an association between homosexuality, Pride and pedophilia, reopens one of the most harmful and discredited narratives that the LGTBIQ+ collective has historically suffered. This is not just an uncomfortable opinion. It is a discursive framework that reproduces a stereotype without scientific, legal or statistical support and that, for decades, was used to legitimize persecutions, dismissals, social exclusions and even imprisonment of people for the mere fact of being homosexual.
Communist pedophile pride and socialist whore
✍️ The opinion of Federico Jiménez Losantos https://t.co/DW8DbHvXgq
— EL MUNDO (@elmundoes) July 6, 2026
The evidence is clear. Sexual orientation has no relationship with the commission of crimes against minors. International organizations, the main scientific associations and agencies specialized in child protection have been dismantling this false link for years. Insisting on that association does not contribute to public debate; contributes to reinforcing a prejudice.
Spain has one of the most advanced legal frameworks in terms of equality and non-discrimination. Law 15/2022, comprehensive for equal treatment and non-discrimination, expressly protects against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Added to this is Law 4/2023 for the real and effective equality of trans people and for the guarantee of LGTBI rights, which recognizes the duty of institutions to combat stigmatization and promote respectful representation of the group.
In the criminal field, article 510 of the Penal Code sanctions certain behaviors that incite hatred, discrimination or violence against protected groups. Not every critical opinion constitutes a crime, and that distinction is essential in a democracy. It is up to the courts to determine when an expression exceeds the threshold of freedom of expression to become legally punishable conduct. However, even when a message does not meet that criminal threshold, this does not mean that it is socially harmless or ethically acceptable.
The media occupy a position of enormous influence in the construction of public debate. They are not simple observers of reality: they contribute to shaping it. When a mainstream newspaper publishes a headline that reactivates one of the most damaging historical prejudices against a minority, it cannot ignore the social context in which that message will be received.
In recent years, LGTBI organizations, public institutions and international organizations have warned about the increase in hate speech and attacks against LGTBIQ+ people in Spain and Europe. During this year’s Pride, numerous entities demanded a State pact against hate and denounced the impact that certain speeches have on democratic coexistence.
Editorial responsibility does not imply censorship. It involves understanding that words generate consequences. Journalism has the obligation to promote critical thinking, contextualize facts and distinguish between information, opinion and misinformation. An owner can be legal and, at the same time, deeply irresponsible from an ethical point of view.
History offers too many examples of how dehumanization begins with seemingly harmless words. Before reaching institutional discrimination, stereotypes almost always appear. Before exclusion, comes suspicion. Before physical violence, a narrative is usually installed that presents a group as a threat to the rest of society.
Associating Pride with pedophilia is not an intellectual provocation; It is the reactivation of a stigma that has caused enormous suffering to millions of people. And when that narrative finds space in media with great capacity for influence, the debate stops being solely about freedom of expression and also becomes a question of democratic responsibility.
A mature democracy protects the right to disagree, even when opinions are uncomfortable. But it also requires a firm commitment to truth, evidence and human dignity. Because freedom of expression does not lose strength when it is exercised responsibly; On the contrary, it is then that it fully fulfills its democratic function.
The real question is not whether a media outlet can publish a headline like that. The question is much deeper: what kind of public conversation do we want to build and what responsibility do those who have the power to influence millions of people assume on a daily basis?
In times of polarization, journalism should not feed old prejudices. It should help dismantle them.
