On Thursday, March 17 and Friday, March 18, the Supreme Court will resume the institutional practice of convening public hearings that have been suspended during the pandemic. In this case, we discuss the cases raised by actress Natalia Denegri against the Google search engine. The reason for the dispute is a category widely discussed in Europe and an outstanding precedent in the country, that is, “the 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), raises an attachment to “her honor” when considering her relationship with the media case 20 years ago. On the one hand, I think it could be a dangerous precedent because search engines defend their “right to information” and those who felt “uncomfortable” in the past may need to be removed from search engines. “We are grateful for the opportunity for the Supreme Court to publicly discuss the decision of the Supreme Court to disclose its own institutions and restrict access to journalistic, artistic or humorous content of a legal nature, limiting the right to freedom of information and expression related to lawsuits that are contrary to the public interest”, which is stated in the official Google statement.
“This material, in addition to a subjective assessment of quality, is part of the cultural heritage. It is important to thoroughly analyze the scope of these court decisions, which may limit the ability of millions of users to find and obtain legal information through the Internet.” The summary added.
Similarly, search engine advocates said the following in their announcement: “The Court of Appeals censors content on issues of public interest and public figures, which are particularly protected by the court's jurisprudence on freedom of expression. ”
And in another sentence they say: “Actors' personal rights are not harmed. In fact, there is no notion of a lack of confidentiality or honor due to public behavior.The reputation of an actor is related to the content it intends to index. It has not even been proven that such content harms Actora's business activities.However, its application in search engines has not been proven because there is no specific law regarding the right to be forgotten. Other High Court (Denied by the Law of the Constitutional Court of Columbia, Gloria, 277-2015). Supreme Court of Brazil Supreme Court, Kuri Case, 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 contradicts V.E., a doctrine of freedom of expression that requires neutrality from the authorities.
Thus, Denegri's “right to honor” conflicts with Google's “right to information” for two days, during which court judges will hear the words of 12 “friends of the court” who will defend both sides. Today there are the American Press Association (IAPA), the Civil Rights Association (ADC), the Argentine Association of Press Organizations (ADEPA), the Law and Social Center (CELS) and the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires Ombudsman.
Lendo series