that of the Truth and that of the Law – kudupinter World News Network

09/12/2025

Updated at 7:45 p.m.

If data is no longer confidential because it appears in a headline, privacy is dead. This is one of the arguments in favor of the dissenting vote in the attorney general’s conviction. Of the 238 pages of the judgment, more than 50 come from … dissenting vote. He insists that data already known to the public is not confidential. “They had already been broadcast (by journalists) and were public knowledge,” explain the two judges about the data contained in the famous press release, key to the sentence. The sentence, as a citizen, terrifies me: none of my data will be deprived of the administration if it is already circulating there. As a journalist, this opens up a never-ending can of bait for me. I could fish out any data by playing the error. But no. The same sentence says it 30 pages before Ana Ferrer and Susana Polo speak: “The duty of confidentiality of the State Attorney General – of any public prosecutor – does not disappear because the information of which he becomes aware due to his function has already been subjected to public processing.” And he continues: “The fact that other media had the email… does not neutralize the duty of confidentiality. Mr. García Ortiz had a heightened duty of confidentiality which he violated without justification.

However, there are still those who defend the (new) right to fight against hoaxes, a sort of self-defense that would kill the confidentiality of our data.

In judging, judges do everything in their power to compare: a doctor cannot confirm a diagnosis even if neighbors see the patient’s symptoms with their own eyes.

We return to the headlines. The information storm within the Prosecutor’s Office is triggered by some erroneous publications about what is happening to González Amador. To prove that this is not the case, the machinery is put into motion. The same judges who maintain that the note “would not be criminal because the information was already known” recognize erroneous journalistic information. Weighing the truths and the confusions, they add that in the trial there are journalists who tell the truth. And so, they choose which journalist to believe and which not to believe. But the judges are not the arbiters of an empire of Truth, but of an empire of Law. It is we, journalists, who play – with the public – in this league of truth. This is why we are entitled to shortcuts like confidentiality of sources. In a legal procedure, the game is played in other terms: those of the rule of law. For it to prevail, truth is necessary, but even the use of that truth is not above the Law itself. Just as the truth of one case does not erase the legality of another. And even if the prosecution revealed confidential information about the alleged crimes, that does not invalidate the fact that González Amador could have committed them.

Session limit reached

Access to Premium content is open through the establishment you are in, but there are currently too many users connected at the same time. Please try again after a few minutes.

try again