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)

Q4 Social Sciences
M. Nieto
{"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.
对国家最高法院判决的评论,“Denegri, Natalia Ruth诉谷歌Inc. s/ personal rights: related action”(文件no . 50.016/2016)
评论文章论述了最高法院对“Denegri”案的裁决。笔者认为,将网络上所有关于原告的信息都视为“公共利益”是不正确的。此外,她坚持认为,高等法院声称Denegri“同意”她过去的荣誉和隐私被曝光的说法也不正确。在阿根廷的法律制度中,对非常个人的权利的规定不是假定的,它具有限制性解释,并且可以自由撤销。由于谷歌公司成立于1998年,因此在事件发生时(1996年),谷歌搜索引擎不可能已经同意将被质疑的内容编入索引。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Prudentia Iuris
Prudentia Iuris Social Sciences-Law
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信