Explore

The civil court charged a journalist for describing Ariel Bernardo Sujarchuk, sub secretary at the University of Buenos Aires, as sinister in a published blog. The Supreme Court applied a known doctrine - The Campillay doctrine - determining that a journalist or, a publisher is not liable for the content published if he or she clearly mentioned the source from which the content is taken, while also not having contributed substantially to the content that was published. In the end, the Court revoked the sentence condemning the journalist.

Article 1.1 defines Internet Service Providers (ISP) as the technological intermediaries who allow access, connection and interconnection to networks and data on the Internet. This also includes those spaces that save and publish data. Article 2.3 clearly outlines ISPs' liability and states that ISPs that serve as technical intermediaries will not be held responsible for content originating from a third party, even if they are distributed through that ISP. The content, however, cannot be altered by the ISP, which cannot choose the contents' destination.

On November 2011, following a claim from Imagen Satelital S.A., a judge ordered ISPs to block access, for all Internet users, to specific content on the website “Cuevana," including the TV series ‘'Falling Skies’’, ‘’Bric’’, and ‘’26 people to save the world’’. The blocking order was based specifically on Article 79 of the Copyright Law. The National Commission of Communications implemented the judicial decision and ordered the ISPs to block access to the infringing content.

The Argentine Delegation of Israeli Associations (DAIA) requested that Google removed the links to many websites presenting ostensibly anti-Semitic and discriminatory content. DAIA filed a class action and the judge ordered Google to remove links to almost 80 websites including references to negations of the Holocaust and criticism of Israel. The judge acknowledged that such a broad restriction may be considered prior censorship under Argentine Constitutional Law but argued that this prior restriction is allowed when the content being banned is illegal and offensive.

In Argentina, controversies against the search engines Google and Yahoo! arose in civil lawsuits brought by different ‘celebrities’ and well‐known public figures for violation of their honor and privacy, or for unauthorized use of their names and images on websites with sexual or pornographic content or with offers of sexual services. Da Cunha is just a sample of over a hundred decisions that all apply very similar arguments to very similar fact patterns: a plaintiff who is famous or well-known had his or her image used without authorization by potentially offensive websites operated by third parties unaffiliated with Google and Yahoo. These operators were not named as parties to the lawsuits. Rather, the plaintiffs brought suits against the search engines for facilitating access to the unauthorized content. The...