A foundation for climate change sued Gordo Dan for his ironic post on X

Amid a context of deep reforms, certain sectors of traditional journalism are once again activating the judicial machinery to attack the national government. This time, the target is Daniel "El Gordo Dan" Parisini, an influential libertarian communicator close to President Javier Milei, whose figure has grown in the heat of the new paradigm of direct political communication without intermediaries.

The complainant is Fernando Míguez, who defines himself as a "journalist and investigator", and president of an NGO called 'Foundation for Peace and Climate Change'. Before the Federal Chamber, Míguez accuses Parisini of incitement to violence and public intimidation, based on critical statements toward journalists Baby Etchecopar, Gabriel Levinas, and Roberto Cachanosky, all known for their openly hostile stances toward the national government.

The supposed threat, actually a rhetorical expression made on social media, mentions that a journalist should be imprisoned by decree, as Alfonsín did, referring to a 1985 episode where the radical former president acted by decree without solid evidence, without direct connection to journalists.

Míguez, however, intends to take the case to the international level, even involving organizations like the FBI and the United States Department of State, invoking an alleged "institutional violence" and what he defines as "structural corruption of organized crime from the State". A serious accusation, without credible evidence, and which seems more like an act of personal propaganda than a legitimate judicial claim.

The document requests a series of disproportionate precautionary measures, such as raids on Parisini, seizure of weapons that are not known if he possesses, and a restraining order to prevent him from approaching the mentioned journalists. All this based solely on statements on social media, without any material support.

Citing articles 149 bis and 209 of the Penal Code, Míguez seeks to impose a persecutory narrative against a citizen whose only "fault" has been to say out loud what many Argentines think: that part of journalism acts as a corporate actor, obstructing the efforts of the most successful government in terms of economic sanitation, inflation reduction, and reintegration of the country into international markets.

What is attempted to be presented as incitement to violence is nothing more than an ironic comment within the framework of public debate, typical of a democracy where freedom of expression can't be monopolized by the major media or by journalists who operate politically. The real threat is not an ironic tweet, but the systematic attempt to delegitimize those who dare to speak the truth.