Suazo vs

Supreme Court
Document type
Court Decision
The plaintiff sought relief from the administrator of a website ( where people can leave anonymous public messages with complaints against companies and services. The plaintiff, the representative of a school, claimed that the site administrator should be held liable for a slanderous accusation posted against her. The plaintiff claimed that the accusations affected her constitutional rights of freedom of teaching and property. A co-plaintiff claimed that his freedom to work was equally affected. The Court of Appeals rejected the claim by recognizing the need to enforce freedom of opinion and freedom of information without prior censorship. Data protection and regulation of journalism were also mentioned by the Court to prevent identification of possible defendants. The Court of Appeals established that providers only fulfill the duty to provide the means of communications. The Supreme Court rejected the appeal, establishing that there was no abusive exercise of the right to express an opinion and inform without prior censorship. The Supreme Court considered that there is no duty of ex ante control by the website administrator.
Topic, claim, or defense
Defamation or Personality Rights
Privacy or Data Protection
Freedom of Expression
Document type
Court Decision
Issuing entity
Highest Domestic/National (including State) Court
Type of service provider
Host (Including Social Networks)
OSP obligation considered
Monitor or Filter
Type of law
General effect on immunity
Strengthens Immunity