The Spanish woman who was fined €800 for putting a picture of a police car on Facebook has seen that fine scrapped.
The photo showed a police car parked illegally in a disabled parking bay in Alicante.
The police were quick to pounce; they filed a complaint against her saying that the photo contravened new legislation known as the Citizens Security Law.
They told the media that the officers were engaged in catching vandals in a nearby park.
But the local government in Alicante has now said that it had "nothing to do with the Citizens Security Law, it was just a picture of a vehicle that was published". They also dropped the fine.
The new law, often referred to as the “gag law”, forbids unauthorised use of images of police. Breaking this provision can result in hefty financial punishments, with fines starting at €600 and rising to as much as €30,000.
The legislation, which entered force on 1 July, also allows stiff fines for protests outside parliament and other government or strategic buildings, such as nuclear power stations.
Amnesty International and others have criticised the government for reducing fundamental rights including the right to freedom of speech and assembly.
Some have said it smacks of the times when the dictator General Franco ruled with an iron fist.
Comments
Any foreigner from an advanced EU member state with a tradition of observance of rights and a truly open notion of press freedom will have noticed how often 'stories' in Portugal disappear from sight.
Nothing heard about it again. Government censorship stepping in.
A more worrying example of this surfaced a couple of years ago in the press. Some University of Aveiro academic research into the arsonists / forest fire starters that cause so much stress to house owners near forestry (or indeed anywhere dry) ... and so much unnecessary expense to the EU in underwriting Portugal's expenses in putting them out.
It was published at the time that the Commanding General of the GNR publicly told his officers not to hand over suspected arsonists to the PJ but to the local Public Prosecutor instead.
The academics pulling together recent years figures of the relevant stages. How many were originally accused (arguidoed) of arson; how many subsequently investigated for arson; how many then prosecuted for arson and how many convicted of arson.
Their conclusions showed an astonishing 30% disappeared from sight at stage 1. Originally named as in the legal system but never formally processed through it. Then a similar figure 2, having been cleared of any involvement through investigation, named as being no longer a suspect. OK.
But stage 1 - Odd or what?