Post by account_disabled on Mar 7, 2024 2:17:18 GMT -5
Doctrinally, it has been defined as personal dignity reflected in the consideration of others and in the feeling of one's own person. As the Constitutional Court has repeatedly pointed out, honor constitutes a “normative legal concept whose precision depends on the norms, values and social ideas in force at all times” [ SSTC 180/1999, of October 11 (RTC 1999, 180) , 52 /2002, of February 25 (RTC 2002, 52), and 51/2008, of April 14 (RTC 2008, 51)] .
Regarding its content, this right protects against attacks on personal reputation, understood as the appreciation that others may have of a person, regardless of their wishes Fax Lists [STC 14/2003, of January 28 (RTC 2003, 14) ], preventing the dissemination of insulting expressions or messages, slanderous attacks or humiliations that objectively cause discredit [STC 216/2006, of July 3 (RTC 2006, 216)].
For any regular or even sporadic user of social networks, it is evident that it is quite easy to find, in almost any of them, expressions that meet these requirements. Therefore, in accordance with the above, these could give rise, in the event of a lawsuit, to a judicial resolution declaring that there had been an illegitimate interference in the right to honor of the person in question, with the consequent liability. civil liability and obligation to pay compensation for damages and lawsuits by the deceased. In fact, to date there are already a large number of judicial resolutions by which the existence of civil liability has been declared, as a consequence of some type of offense such as those previously described on social networks.
Likewise, due to the public nature of social networks, it is usually quite easy in this case to prove that a violation of the right to honor has occurred. In court, it is usually enough to provide a reproduction of the offensive comment (either digitally or on paper) or, alternatively, request the sending of a letter to the corresponding social network to prove the existence of the comment.
Regarding its content, this right protects against attacks on personal reputation, understood as the appreciation that others may have of a person, regardless of their wishes Fax Lists [STC 14/2003, of January 28 (RTC 2003, 14) ], preventing the dissemination of insulting expressions or messages, slanderous attacks or humiliations that objectively cause discredit [STC 216/2006, of July 3 (RTC 2006, 216)].
For any regular or even sporadic user of social networks, it is evident that it is quite easy to find, in almost any of them, expressions that meet these requirements. Therefore, in accordance with the above, these could give rise, in the event of a lawsuit, to a judicial resolution declaring that there had been an illegitimate interference in the right to honor of the person in question, with the consequent liability. civil liability and obligation to pay compensation for damages and lawsuits by the deceased. In fact, to date there are already a large number of judicial resolutions by which the existence of civil liability has been declared, as a consequence of some type of offense such as those previously described on social networks.
Likewise, due to the public nature of social networks, it is usually quite easy in this case to prove that a violation of the right to honor has occurred. In court, it is usually enough to provide a reproduction of the offensive comment (either digitally or on paper) or, alternatively, request the sending of a letter to the corresponding social network to prove the existence of the comment.