Comentario al fallo de la Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nación, ‘Denegri, Natalia Ruth c/ Google Inc. s/ derechos personalísimos: acciones relacionadas (expediente nº 50.016/2016)
{"title":"Comentario al fallo de la Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nación, ‘Denegri, Natalia Ruth c/ Google Inc. s/ derechos personalísimos: acciones relacionadas (expediente nº 50.016/2016)","authors":"M. Nieto","doi":"10.46553/prudentia.95.2023.pp.203-215","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":": The opinion article addresses the ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice in the “Denegri” Case. The author maintains that it is not correct to consider all the in-formation regarding the plaintiff available on the web as being of “public interest”. In addition, she maintains that the statement that Denegri gave her “consent” for the expo-sure of her honor and privacy in the past, alleged by the High Court to reject the claim, is not correct either. In the Argentine legal system, the provision of very personal rights is not presumed, it is of restrictive interpretation, and freely revocable. There cannot have been consent to the indexing of the questioned content in the Google search engine at the time the events occurred –years 1996–, since Google Inc. was founded in 1998.","PeriodicalId":36086,"journal":{"name":"Prudentia Iuris","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Prudentia Iuris","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.46553/prudentia.95.2023.pp.203-215","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
: The opinion article addresses the ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice in the “Denegri” Case. The author maintains that it is not correct to consider all the in-formation regarding the plaintiff available on the web as being of “public interest”. In addition, she maintains that the statement that Denegri gave her “consent” for the expo-sure of her honor and privacy in the past, alleged by the High Court to reject the claim, is not correct either. In the Argentine legal system, the provision of very personal rights is not presumed, it is of restrictive interpretation, and freely revocable. There cannot have been consent to the indexing of the questioned content in the Google search engine at the time the events occurred –years 1996–, since Google Inc. was founded in 1998.