Elías Piccirillo asked the Judiciary to remove all negative mentions about him in internet search engines and social networks, but he failed in the attempt.
The brand new husband of the model and TV host Jessica Cirio He asked the Judiciary to remove all negative mentions about him in internet search engines and social networks, but the attempt failed.
Elias Piccirillo presented before the Federal Civil and Commercial Justice an “autonomous or self-satisfactory precautionary measure” with which it intended “the cessation of all public allusion, by any form of expression, directly or indirectly, through nicknames, images or any other means that allows it to be identified.”
This included “name, surname, photographs, videos of his person and family environment (including his minor daughter), intimacy, ties and partners (especially with the model Jesica Cirio), aspects of his economy, their commercial activities, assets, finances, alleged scams and/or crimes and/or legal casessensitive information about your person, past and present conduct, in public and private media, redirection in the internet search engines Google and Bing, and publications and republications on the social networks X (Twitter), Instagram and Facebook.
Piccirillo justified his statement by saying that “he is a person with an extremely low profile and has never appeared on television, in newspapers, or on radio programs. He does not even have much exposure on social networks, other than that necessary to keep in touch with his family and friends.”
Furthermore, he added that, “being a person who always protected his privacy, he is not prepared to face the terrible media exposure of which he is being a victim, based on an absolute misrepresentation of his private life.”
The response of justice to the request of Jesica Cirio’s husband
But the judges Florence Nallar, Eduardo Gottardi and Alfredo Gusman They warned that “the request for the immediate elimination of the sites that the petitioner classifies as offensive implies a necessary preliminary value judgment, – both for the actor and for the entire society – on the falsity or truthfulness of the information that the petitioner objects to” .
“Especially,” they added, “when the recipients of the precautionary measure are not the authors of the content in question, but rather the intermediary social network that facilitates its access.”
The ruling – signed at the end of March but known only now – highlights that “this special constitutional protection determines, as this Chamber has repeatedly resolved, that if injury to privacy, honor or good name is invoked as the basis for the measure through electronic means, the burden of proof on that point falls on the person seeking the precautionary restriction”.
Source: Ambito
I am an author and journalist who has worked in the entertainment industry for over a decade. I currently work as a news editor at a major news website, and my focus is on covering the latest trends in entertainment. I also write occasional pieces for other outlets, and have authored two books about the entertainment industry.
