The origin of the judicial procedure dates back to February 2017, when an anonymous person filed a complaint for hate crimes. The accused, known as the Twitter user "Barbijaputa", faces accusations of showing rejection and intolerance towards Jews, glorifying Hitler and his regime, and trivializing the Holocaust through social media posts. In her defense, the female activist María Pozo, 44 years old, emphasizes that the messages in question have been taken out of context and that they are jokes within a specific political framework.
During the court hearing, the prosecutor questioned Pozo about her alleged hatred towards Jews, to which she responded by stating that she is "deeply antifascist" and denying such feelings. Throughout these years, the accused has claimed to have suffered defamation and threats due to the misinterpretation of her posts, which has emotionally affected her.
During the trial, witnesses such as former deputy Juan Carlos Girauta and lawyer Fernando Múgica Heras testified, highlighting the negative impact of discriminatory messages on the Jewish community in Spain. The popular prosecution, represented by the Legal Committee for the Fight against Discrimination, summoned several members of the Jewish community to support their case.
Pozo, under the pseudonym "Barbijaputa", admitted to having managed the account since 2011 and having published controversial comments, although she claimed that some were not hers. She defended her stance by invoking freedom of expression and the political context in which her posts are situated. The accused has denied being anti-Semitic and attributed the allegations to an alleged campaign to discredit her by the far-right.
The messages in question have been deemed offensive and distressing according to the Prosecutor's Office, which has requested a sentence of one year and nine months in prison for incitement to hatred, as well as disqualification from using social media. Pozo's defense has emphasized her right to freedom of expression and has questioned the legality of the process, alleging violation of procedural guarantees.
