Right to be forgotten: Google warned about the risk of limiting freedom of information and expression

On Thursday, March 17 and Friday, March 18, the Supreme Court will resume the institutional practice of suspending public hearings during the pandemic. In this case, the case raised by actress Natalia Denegri against the Google search engine will be discussed. The reason for the dispute is a category widely discussed in Europe and a precedent pending in the country, that is, the so-called “right to be forgotten.”

Denegri, who appeared on Google as “the girl in the Coppola case” (a court case that occurred in the United States in 1996), increases the affection of “his respect” when considering his relationship with the media case 20 years ago. On the one hand, I think that the search engine defends the “right to information”, and someone who has felt “uncomfortable” in the past can request removal from the search engine, so it can be a dangerous precedent. “We appreciate the opportunity for the Supreme Court to openly discuss its decision to restrict the right to freedom of information and expression, to disclose its own free will, and to disclose access to journalistic, artistic or humorous content of a legal nature. Proceedings against the public interest. Google said in an official statement.

“This content is part of the cultural heritage, in addition to a subjective assessment of its quality. An in-depth analysis of the scope of this type of court decision is required, which may limit the ability of millions of users to search and obtain legal information over the Internet.”

Likewise, search engine lawyers said in their announcement that “the trial under appeal censors content on issues of public interest and public figures that are particularly protected by the jurisprudence of this court in relation to freedom of expression. ”

And in another poem he thought: “There is no prejudice to the personal rights of actors because there is no lack of privacy or respect derived from public acts of their own personality.There is no denying that the content is not claimed to be true or false, that the actor is a public figure, or that the actor's reputation is related to the content for the purpose of indexing it. Also, it has not been proven that such content harms the professional performance of the actor. However, without specific laws regarding the right to be forgotten, its application to search engines has not been proven. Other Superior Jurisdictions (Constitution of Colombia Denied by the Jurisprudence of the Tribunal, Gloria Case, 277-2015) .Brazilian Supreme Court, Kasakuri, 10-02-21; Supreme Court of Chile, Abreu Case, 3-01-22)”.

“Restricting access to this information based on subjective considerations, such as artistic or journalistic quality, is an act of censorship and is contrary to VE, a principle on freedom of expression that requires neutrality from the authorities.” He concluded.

In this way, Denegri's “right to honor” conflicts with Google's “right to information” for two days, and court judges will hear 12 “friends of the court” who will defend both parties. To date, there are the American Press Association (IAPA), the Civil Rights Association (ADC), the Argentine Association of Press Organizations (ADEPA), the Legal Society Center (CELS) and the Ombudsman of the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires.

Continuous lendo