Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Redes sociales, funas, honor y libertad de expresión: Análisis crítico de los estándares de la jurisprudencia de la Corte Suprema chilena

Translated title of the contribution: Social Networks, Funas, Honor and Freedom of Expression: Critical Analysis of Chilean Supreme Court Judicial Standards
  • Universidad Autonoma de Chile
  • Universidad Diego Portales

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

12 Scopus citations

Abstract

This paper aims to fill the gap in Chilean literature and contribute to the systematization and critical analysis of the legal criteria and standards of how fundamental law norms have been applied on social networks publications cases. To this end, it reviews the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court in cases of acciones de protección during 2020 and sets the applicable criteria. In most cases, the Court has accepted the claims of those whose personal honor has been affected and has ordered the removal of the publications from the networks. The article adopts a critical look at the jurisprudence, since some decisions do not pay enough attention to the protection of freedom of expression, especially by following an excessively legalistic criterion. In addition, we argue that the acción de protección has procedural limitations to deal with the problems of doxing in social networks.

Translated title of the contributionSocial Networks, Funas, Honor and Freedom of Expression: Critical Analysis of Chilean Supreme Court Judicial Standards
Original languageSpanish
Pages (from-to)345-371
Number of pages27
JournalDerecho PUCP
Issue number87
DOIs
StatePublished - 2021
Externally publishedYes

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

  1. SDG 16 - Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
    SDG 16 Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Social Networks, Funas, Honor and Freedom of Expression: Critical Analysis of Chilean Supreme Court Judicial Standards'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this