Why won't Vox tell its voters to stop watching La Liga if it backs censorship?
A judge in Córdoba, Spain, has authorized blocking VPNs and identifying users over piracy. The question is why Vox doesn't call for a La Liga boycott if it supports censorship.
English · Original discussion in Spanish · Published
The question of why Vox doesn't call for a La Liga boycott rests on a premise the party has not publicly addressed: that watching the competition funds a judicial system that authorizes VPN blocking and the identification of users. There are no statements from Vox answering that question.
The debate over piracy and censorship is back in the spotlight after it emerged that a judge in **Córdoba**, Spain, has authorized blocking **VPNs** and identifying users to pursue piracy. The publication that revived the controversy notes that the same judge is "a media star who gives interviews" and is "embarked on the titanic task of making life difficult for pirates." The underlying issue is who pays the price for that crackdown and what role parties that claim to defend digital freedoms play.
## The judge who authorizes blocking VPNs and identifying users
The known court ruling affects users of **VPNs**, a tool that encrypts the connection and allows faking locations. The order authorizes blocking those connections and, where applicable, identifying the users who employ them to access protected content. The publication that has focused on the matter highlights the paradox that the presiding judge is someone with a media presence who grants interviews. The verifiable fact is the judicial authorization; the rest is interpretation.
## Why Vox doesn't call for a La Liga boycott
The question hanging in the air is why **Vox** doesn't send its voters a clear message: if watching La Liga means funding the operators who push judges to authorize **VPN** blocks and user identification, giving it up would be consistent with the party's anti-censorship rhetoric. There are no public statements from Vox addressing that contradiction. The party has not taken a position on a viewing boycott as a form of protest.
## The cost of consistency for the fan
The fan who pays for a subscription indirectly funds the system that goes after those who use a **VPN**. That is the chain the question puts on the table. Demanding consistency from a party means accepting that its anti-censorship rhetoric has practical consequences for its voters. No one has quantified how many **Vox** fans would be willing to stop watching La Liga. The question remains unanswered publicly.
The debate over piracy and censorship is back in the spotlight after it emerged that a judge in **Córdoba**, Spain, has authorized blocking **VPNs** and identifying users to pursue piracy. The publication that revived the controversy notes that the same judge is "a media star who gives interviews" and is "embarked on the titanic task of making life difficult for pirates." The underlying issue is who pays the price for that crackdown and what role parties that claim to defend digital freedoms play.
## The judge who authorizes blocking VPNs and identifying users
The known court ruling affects users of **VPNs**, a tool that encrypts the connection and allows faking locations. The order authorizes blocking those connections and, where applicable, identifying the users who employ them to access protected content. The publication that has focused on the matter highlights the paradox that the presiding judge is someone with a media presence who grants interviews. The verifiable fact is the judicial authorization; the rest is interpretation.
## Why Vox doesn't call for a La Liga boycott
The question hanging in the air is why **Vox** doesn't send its voters a clear message: if watching La Liga means funding the operators who push judges to authorize **VPN** blocks and user identification, giving it up would be consistent with the party's anti-censorship rhetoric. There are no public statements from Vox addressing that contradiction. The party has not taken a position on a viewing boycott as a form of protest.
## The cost of consistency for the fan
The fan who pays for a subscription indirectly funds the system that goes after those who use a **VPN**. That is the chain the question puts on the table. Demanding consistency from a party means accepting that its anti-censorship rhetoric has practical consequences for its voters. No one has quantified how many **Vox** fans would be willing to stop watching La Liga. The question remains unanswered publicly.
Summary of a discussion on Burbuja.info - Foro de economía, actualidad y política., translated from Spanish and reviewed before publication. Read the full discussion (6 replies).
More summaries
-
A democratic obligation unfulfilled (ABC editorial)
Article 134.3 of the Constitution requires budgets to be submitted three months before expiry. Spain is still running on the 2023 Budget.
-
Vox leads forum poll including abstention, which decides outcome
A forum poll including non-voters places Vox first and abstention as the deciding factor: no stable government forms without them.
-
Spanish singer Francisco ordered to pay €500 monthly child support
Spanish singer Francisco must continue paying €500/month to his daughter and faces account seizure for €27,000 in unpaid dues.
-
PP-Vox coalition: predicted tax hikes and pension freezes
Speculation on a PP-Vox government includes audits, spending cuts, higher VAT, lower IRPF, and frozen pensions.
-
A jury at Moncloa (Ignacio Camacho in El ABC)
Spain's government pre-empts the courts by declaring Begoña Gómez innocent, citing a lack of evidence and criticising the judicial investigation.
-
Hispanidad Festival 2026 returns to Madrid with over 200 events
The Community of Madrid hosts the sixth edition of the Fiestas de Hispanidad 2026 with more than 200 activities from 2 to 12 October, including a grand parade.