A) The serious defamation of arts advertising. 208, 209 and 211 of the Penal Code consumed just when there is damage to the dignity, or impairment of fame and consideration of others, which in essence requires the publication out of the realm and domain of the author, so that the dynamics cornice covers a longer period or less long supported assumptions about who co-authored, without intervening in the drafting of the offending article, also have the broadcast domain.
In any case, the responsibility that the CP 95 receives in this regard is staggered, exclusive and subsidiary, so that apart from joint and several liability extends to the person or entity that owns the half-art diffuser . CP 212 95 - The criminal can only achieve the perpetrator, and just about impossible to identify it, those responsible for the broadcast.
When assessing the seriousness of the injuries, it is clear the circumstantial nature of the required analysis, and is responsible for specifying the Penal Code Article 208 when in its second paragraph states that "only constitutes a criminal offense will be the injuries by their nature, effects and circumstances are taken into the public perception of serious. "
The circumstantial nature of the injuries the shaping the jurisprudence of the 2 nd of the Supreme Court prescribed that are taken into account how factors or personal data, time, place, time, shape, etc., cherished values, contribute, in part, to clarify the true intent or purpose that animated the subject proferidor of the offense, and, secondly, contribute to determine the importance and magnitude of the rates of the Criminal Code (Case 29/11/1985, 12/02/1989 and 12/21/1990, 05/21/1997 citing of).
.
B) If insulting language through internet, made in the scope of the exercise of freedom of expression, but outside the scope of constitutionally protected right to freedom of expression, colliding with the right to honor someone else will constitute a continuing offense of libel, because as it is declared legal doctrine (V. including STS. 25-10-999) being also cite 26/04/1995 Judgement of the European Court of Human Rights, the legitimate right to freedom of expression must not exceed the limits of its own, or put another way, you can comment and criticize freely, about how annoying or inconvenient, whether its terms, do not use insulting terms for themselves than as this will have on public perception. In the present case the use of words was quite unnecessary, showing the offensive spirit of the author.
B) If insulting language through internet, made in the scope of the exercise of freedom of expression, but outside the scope of constitutionally protected right to freedom of expression, colliding with the right to honor someone else will constitute a continuing offense of libel, because as it is declared legal doctrine (V. including STS. 25-10-999) being also cite 26/04/1995 Judgement of the European Court of Human Rights, the legitimate right to freedom of expression must not exceed the limits of its own, or put another way, you can comment and criticize freely, about how annoying or inconvenient, whether its terms, do not use insulting terms for themselves than as this will have on public perception. In the present case the use of words was quite unnecessary, showing the offensive spirit of the author.
Especially if the defendant came to admit that expressions in question was insulting, the same advertising exists, because, although embedded in a restricted website actually came easily to the knowledge of the offended and the appellant has not shown that proposed reserve or restricted access to abusive communications.
.
C) LIABILITY: In relation to civil liability, art. 9.3 LO 1 / 1982 of May 5 is clear in stating that "The existence of prejudice is presumed if the trespass is proven, then there's injury, obviously credited with scrupulous respect for the principle of presumption of innocence The damage is presumed unless evidence to the contrary, so that is not the complainant who has to prove any material damage, but declared a criminal charge must prove that there was not.
different thing is the quantum of damages, for which the said art. 9.3 Set criteria certainly still undetermined allow the judge and the parties themselves determine the scope for moral damages, without further requirement in this appeal, that the manifestation by the trial court of the reasons that led, in the case to fix the amount which it points.
Thus, it is established jurisprudence of the Supreme Court declaring that the moral is and welcomes a wide range of feeling hurt or humiliated dignity, dishonor, disrepute, disgrace or disrepute, with a feeling of pain, mood and intimate to be compensated.
And it must be borne in mind that the amount or amount of compensation must be fixed on the basis not of wealth or economic potential of the charge, but in terms of damage generated.
.
0 comments:
Post a Comment