Public court hearing on Natalia Denegri's case against Google begins

This Thursday and tomorrow will be a public hearing convened by the Supreme Court of the country in the context of the case initiated by Natalia Denegri against Google on the “right to be forgotten”. It requires search engines to remove links related to media from the 1990s past.

Due to the number of friends of the court (amicus curiae) that appeared in the file, the court ordered that the hearing should also be held on Friday.

On the first day of the hearing, representatives of civil society organizations, constitutional lawyers, and computer law experts will be present. Speakers have previously submitted a summary of the presentation in digital format, and the presentation may not last longer than 8 minutes.On the second day, the Attorney General of the State, Victor Abramovich, and the parties to the dispute will attend.

This Thursday, Maria Rosa Muiños, Autonomous City of Buenos Aires; Association of Journalistic Organizations of Argentina (ADEPA); Andres Gil Dominguez and Raúl Martínez Pazalari; Civil Rights Association (ADC); Horacio Roberto Granero; Center for Legal and Social Studies (CELS); Ricardo Alberto Munoz (h); Civil Association for Constitutional Research (ACEC); Francisco Javier Seminara; Civic Association Ushina de Justicia; Ombudsman of the Province of Buenos Aires, Guido Lorenzino; LED Foundation Freedom of Expression+Democracy.

As Inforbae found out, some of the claims that will be expressed at the hearing relate to the fact that personal data is not the same as information, and in that sense, the limitation to the “right to be forgotten” is the right to information and the public interest in it. This abusive exercise of the right to be forgotten can lead to irreversible loss of information in the digital sphere, which means that if it becomes a widespread practice, we systematically lose the history of our society and democracy. It cannot be used as a tool to communicate “social oblivion”, according to the opinion of one of the Amicus, who will present this Thursday, the judge cannot be an authorized mediator or censor for decisions about what should be remembered or forgotten.

Another basis that will be heard this morning is that the consequences of recognizing the right to be forgotten can be very serious in a democratic society that can be used to hide the information necessary for the decisions of society. Due to this situation, there is a lack of protection for individuals to access information. According to the information that Infobae had access, he would mention the so-called “public forum doctrine” written by the Supreme Court of the United States. This doctrine provides adequate and reasonable protection against judicial decisions required by Internet search engines. Certain links are blocked when claiming the right to be forgotten.

Likewise, the right to be forgotten by one of the amicus that will be made public this Thursday could turn an Internet content management company into a promoter of censorship, potentially abused and limit the possibility of disseminating the idea.

We will also note that the risks to freedom of expression are twofold, on the one hand, the ability of search engines to influence public debates by providing biased results and the possibility that governments can impose regulations on intermediaries in the form of indirect censorship. Another risk is that imposing civil or criminal liability on search engines can serve as an incentive for private censorship.

The right to be forgotten by one of the professionals who will participate in the hearing is not unlimited, its limit is in the public interest, and this solution cannot be entrusted only to the will of the relevant subject, since it indiscriminately prerogates his personal rights. It goes beyond freedom of information and freedom of expression.

Another amicus curiae argues that a more rigorous review of the constitutionality of the measures requested by Denegri is necessary because the information it is trying to suppress is true. He added that the space protected for privacy is limited in his willingness to expose himself publicly and to the public conditions.He warns that the decision to remove or obstruct information retrieval must be taken with caution, and in this case it is part of an event that moves society. It is impossible to measure the future importance of the information being excluded.

One of the exhibitors may find that the removal of the index is less serious than the deletion of information, but it is a barrier that hinders the search or dissemination, since it cannot be accessed if it is not a search engine. In addition to preventing readers from accessing information, it also deprives journalists of powerful research tools. The right to be forgotten can affect freedom of expression, the exercise of the press and information, open debate and the effective validity of the democratic regime.

The lawyer Víctor Abramovich raised the question of whether blocking Internet links with content violates freedom of expression, according to Denegri, which is harmful to his person. “If we make controversial information here an undeniable public interest, all measures to block or filter links imposed on Internet search tools actually impose extreme censorship measures with strong presumption of unconstitutionality, which are justified only in absolutely exceptional circumstances,” he said.

Keep reading: