The journalist Alfonso Rojo has been ordered to pay 20,000 euros to the secretary general of we Can, Pablo Churches, for violating their honor in 2014 to call it "sausage", "mangante", scoundrel" or "asshole" during a televised debate in The Sixth Night and continue to he in the program The Rattlesnake and in his personal account of Twitter.
The Provincial court of Madrid has confirmed the sentence imposed on the 22nd of June to the director of Digital Journalist by the court of first instance number 13, that estimated partially the demand Paul’s Churches against tertullian, filed through lawyer Jaume Asens. This sentence put the sentence in a compensation of 20,000 euros, as well as to publish-to-coast Red-the proven facts and the judgment of the sentence in the middle that directs.
The Hearing confirms that Alfonso Red committed a trespass in the honor of Paul’s Churches to the use of libellous without evidence, in such a way that surpassed the right to freedom of expression in which he covered: "there is no right to insult," says the resolution.
The court of first instance of reduced from 30,000 to 20,000 euros to the request of compensation that called for Paul’s Churches, and sentenced the journalist, after making a balance between rights in conflict: the freedom of information and expression, on the one hand, and the right to honor and privacy of a leader we Can for the other side.
Alfonso Red appealed against this sentence before the Audiencia Provincial of Madrid, which has confirmed the sentence in one resolution dated June 30, and notified on the 1st of September.
The sentence is now confirmed studies the debates and concludes that the words used by Red as "chorizo", "mangante", "scammer" or "asshole" were "vexatious and unnecessary, exceeding the freedom of expression", which exposes a large jurisprudence on the limits to this fundamental right and the rules of weighting between the required the requirement of veracity and public relevance.
"The Constitution does not recognize a supposed right to insult", describes the judgment at the conclusion that they were expressions "absolutely vexatious". The Audience added in its resolution that in the appeal of the Red "no mention is made even of the veracity of such claims, so that your potential offense of the honor of the plaintiff could not have coverage is constitutional, that it protects only truthful information".
No comments:
Post a Comment