As a consequence of the appeal of the ruling to the highest instance, it is currently subject to the final resolution of the Supreme Court. In that context, Public Hearings have already been held to hear the opinion of various experts and institutions that attended as “amicus curiae” and to listen to each of the parties.
This case is relevant because, if Denegri’s request proceeds as recognition of the right to be forgotten, it will have an impact on freedom of the press, freedom of expression, and the right to access information of Internet users. These rights find repercussion as they are considered essential pillars for life in democracy.
The interesting thing is that the content that the search engine selects is not false, but rather it is information that dates back more than 20 years. Therefore, nor those responsible for Internet sites are sued, but the search engine is sued for its role as “facilitator”.
When googling the name Natalia Denegri, despite her career, the result gives prominence to media content that, although it may be of no cultural or informative value, for others it is of public interest. Even more so when she was involved in a criminal case. The question then is: To what extent can it be erased from history?
This scenario, in which Denegri considers that she was a victim, makes her feel stigmatized and injured, since beyond having done it voluntarily, she was a minor, which calls into question the validity of her consent. In addition, she adds that she had no possibility of foreseeing the massiveness of the digital tool, because it did not exist at that time. A different time, a new perspective.
The gender perspective is a reality that today challenges the entire society, forming part of State policies. In this sense, it could be crucial if it is considered that the images and videos promoted by Denegri wanted to represent a stereotype that crystallizes women in a stigmatizing way, given that it could be seen as media and gender violence.
Does the right to be forgotten exist in Argentina?
This response is not peaceful. Specifically, there is no rule that contemplates the so-called “right to be forgotten”.
However, there is a law that protects personal data held in any database, including digital ones. This allows the person to demand: deletion if the processing of these data is illegitimate; preservation if it is confidential; rectification if it is false or inaccurate; or the update if the state of this data has changed.
In the field of credit information there is a kind of “right to be forgotten”, because it prohibits the possibility of saving data related to the economic-financial solvency of a debtor, after 2 or 5 years of having canceled or prescribed the debt.
Returning to the present case, the uncertainty of the permanence of all the information that works on the internet through the various digital tools is exposed. Although until now the principle of informative self-determination prevails, where the users are the ones who decide to share information and documents, the risk is that the precedent constitutes a tool that enables individuals to build a past to suit them.
Regardless of what happens with the Denegri case, the way in which the Supreme Court expresses itself will form unavoidable criteria and rules for future cases, which must be exceptional (not limit beyond what is necessary) and of restrictive interpretation, prevailing freedom of expression.
Professor of Law at UADE.
Source: Ambito
