T-155/19
Freedom of expression and the rights to a good name and honor in social networks
Sigifredo Fonseca González v. Jael Johana Castro León
Date: 04/04/2019
Judge-Rapporteur: Diana Constanza Fajardo Rivera
Concurrence: Alejandro Linares Cantillo
Dissent: Luis Guillermo Guerrero Pérez
Facts. The violation of fundamental rights is attributed to a publication on the Facebook social network, of photographs and names of public servants who worked at the University Hospital of Santander, the plaintiff included, saying they were involved in corrupt behavior inside the health institution.
The plaintiff requested that their rights to good name, honor and privacy be protected, and action taken to eliminate the aforementioned publication. He also demands that apologies be made on the same social network.
Issue: Do the publication on social networks of negative information violate per se the rights to honor, good name, and privacy of the affected person?
Ruling and reasoning. No, provided that the statements are solely the personal opinion of the person making such claims, and they do not represent a concrete accusation against a specific person. To reach this decision, the Chamber mentioned five dimensions of the communicative act, that set the constitutional parameters necessary to establish the degree of protection that freedom of expression should receive, when it conflicts with the rights of third parties. Those dimensions are indicated by the following questions: i) Who communicates? ii) What or From Whom is it communicated? iii) To Whom is it communicated? iv) How is it communicated; and v) By What means is it communicated? Answering these questions helps to set down the context in which the act of communication occurs and, therefore, determine what the appropriate balance between rights is and the way to protect them. It also leads to avoiding the imposition of unreasonable restrictions to the freedom of expression.
Therefore, the Court concluded that the fundamental rights to honor, good name, and privacy of a public servant were not violated, since the citizen were exercising his freedom of expression and his right to control over political power, linking the public servant behavior to actions contrary to the law, provided that his statements were solely his opinion and did not represent a concrete accusation against a specific person.
Accordingly, the protection invoked was DENIED.
|