Post by account_disabled on Feb 15, 2024 5:33:54 GMT -5
Regarding its content, this right protects against attacks on personal reputation, understood as the appreciation that others may have of a person, regardless of their wishes [STC 14/2003, of January 28 (RTC 2003, 14) ], preventing the dissemination of insulting expressions or messages, slanderous attacks or humiliations that objectively cause discredit [STC 216/2006, of July 3 (RTC 2006, 216)].
For any regular or even sporadic user of social networks, it is evident that it is quite easy to find, in almost any of them, expressions that meet these requirements. Therefore, in accordance with the above, these could give rise, in the event of a lawsuit, to a judicial resolution declaring that there had been an illegitimate interference in the right Austria Email List to honor of the person in question, with the consequent liability. civil liability and obligation to pay compensation for damages and lawsuits by the deceased. In fact, to date there are already a large number of judicial resolutions by which the existence of civil liability has been declared, as a consequence of some type of offense such as those previously described on social networks.
Likewise, due to the public nature of social networks, it is usually quite easy in this case to prove that a violation of the right to honor has occurred. In court, it is usually enough to provide a reproduction of the offensive comment (either digitally or on paper) or, alternatively, request the sending of a letter to the corresponding social network to prove the existence of the comment.
Now, the right to honor is not an absolute right but, according to repeated jurisprudence, it is limited, for example, by the freedoms of expression and information, a limitation that occurs when a conflict occurs between one right and another, the which must be resolved through constitutional weighing techniques, taking into account the circumstances of the case [among others, SSTS of November 12, 2008 (RJ 2009, 4) , September 19, 2008 (RJ 2008, 5561) , etc.] .
By weighing it is understood, after verifying the existence of a collision between rights, the examination of the intensity and significance with which each of them is affected, in order to develop a rule that allows, giving preference to one or the other , the resolution of the case through its subsumption in it. The way in which this weighing must be carried out is well detailed, for example, in ruling 201/2019 of the Supreme Court, of April 3, referring to a message published on Facebook by a councilor, a few hours after the death of a bullfighter in a traumatic way.
On the other hand, as indicated by the STS, of November 26, 2019, according to art. 9.3 of the aforementioned Organic Law 1/1982, the existence of damage will be presumed whenever the illegitimate interference is proven, so in this case it is much easier to prove the existence of damage than in other cases of civil liability, especially when This is moral damage.
For any regular or even sporadic user of social networks, it is evident that it is quite easy to find, in almost any of them, expressions that meet these requirements. Therefore, in accordance with the above, these could give rise, in the event of a lawsuit, to a judicial resolution declaring that there had been an illegitimate interference in the right Austria Email List to honor of the person in question, with the consequent liability. civil liability and obligation to pay compensation for damages and lawsuits by the deceased. In fact, to date there are already a large number of judicial resolutions by which the existence of civil liability has been declared, as a consequence of some type of offense such as those previously described on social networks.
Likewise, due to the public nature of social networks, it is usually quite easy in this case to prove that a violation of the right to honor has occurred. In court, it is usually enough to provide a reproduction of the offensive comment (either digitally or on paper) or, alternatively, request the sending of a letter to the corresponding social network to prove the existence of the comment.
Now, the right to honor is not an absolute right but, according to repeated jurisprudence, it is limited, for example, by the freedoms of expression and information, a limitation that occurs when a conflict occurs between one right and another, the which must be resolved through constitutional weighing techniques, taking into account the circumstances of the case [among others, SSTS of November 12, 2008 (RJ 2009, 4) , September 19, 2008 (RJ 2008, 5561) , etc.] .
By weighing it is understood, after verifying the existence of a collision between rights, the examination of the intensity and significance with which each of them is affected, in order to develop a rule that allows, giving preference to one or the other , the resolution of the case through its subsumption in it. The way in which this weighing must be carried out is well detailed, for example, in ruling 201/2019 of the Supreme Court, of April 3, referring to a message published on Facebook by a councilor, a few hours after the death of a bullfighter in a traumatic way.
On the other hand, as indicated by the STS, of November 26, 2019, according to art. 9.3 of the aforementioned Organic Law 1/1982, the existence of damage will be presumed whenever the illegitimate interference is proven, so in this case it is much easier to prove the existence of damage than in other cases of civil liability, especially when This is moral damage.