The court dismissed a civil suit against Mirtha LeGrand on a clear defense of free speech

The Supreme Court on Tuesday reaffirmed the right to freedom of expression and The compensation claim filed against singer Mirtha LeGrand’s show was dismissed For the coverage conducted there as a result of the ongoing investigation into the disappearance of a newborn baby at a clinic in Mar del Plata.

The decision was couched in the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court. The court Doctrines have developed that strongly protect the exercise of freedom of expression, Particularly in matters of public interest, it constitutes both the Cambellai doctrine and the doctrine of actual malice. Standards Which provides extensive protection for freedom of expression and maintains ample space for the development of “robust public debate.”

In recent years, the court Rulings have been issued in favor of freedom of expression as in 2020 When he issued two rulings in favor of freedom of the press and professional journalistic confidentiality protected by Article 43 of the Constitution, which set precedents for other trials against journalists.

On the one hand, it unanimously confirmed the dismissal of Carlos Pani, Roberto García and other journalists and individuals in a case in which they had been accused for twelve years of belonging to an alleged illegal spy network and violating state secrets. Another lawsuit was filed by Cecilia Bando against Barcelona magazine.

Here, after the opinion of the Public Prosecutor, Judges Horacio Rosati, Carlos Rosencrantz and Riccardo Lorenzetti confirmed that what happened on the program was framed. “A legitimate social interest that protects freedom of expression and justifies some interference with private life.”

The case arose from the television broadcast of information deemed defamatory of the groups MB and OB – both public officials at the time – in the framework of several programs hosted by Rosa María Juana Martínez Suárez – real name of Mirtha Legrand – and the companies Candilejas SA, Teveespectáculos SA and América TV SA.

During four radio programs between 2000 and 2001, the so-called Rocío Cigarreta case was covered, and a criminal investigation was opened into the disappearance of a newborn baby at a clinic in Mar del Plata. In dealing with the case, various guests and the hostess herself were mentioned hypothesis Which linked the actors – directly or indirectly – to this disappearance and to an alleged network dedicated to child trafficking. This connection, according to the actors, was false and caused them serious harm.

The situation got worse, the suit said, because the programs also published intimate and family data of the two actors and their two youngest daughters, such as the birthplace of one, the adopted status of the other, and the existence of DNA studies.

For the actors, this information made it possible to identify them and violate court orders and regulations that protect the privacy and rights of children and adolescents. For this reason, they claimed that the media’s conduct was neither neutral nor informative, but rather that they were publicly identified as being involved in a particularly serious crime.

In the face of this public exposure, MB and OB filed a lawsuit for damages against the host, producer and channels involved. They considered it His honor, his image, and his close relationship with his family were affected, They were unfairly exposed to public opinion in a context of high social sensitivity.

At the first instance, the court supported this claim and convicted the defendants, but Circuit M of the National Court of Civil Appeal, by majority, overturned the ruling. Those affected then filed an extraordinary federal appeal, which was granted.

The case was referred to the Public Prosecutor, who ruled to reject the case. “I consider that the contested ruling correctly understood that the treatment of news by the defendants and the phrases are questionable It is protected by the right to freedom of expression and does not violate the right to honor the accused“, the opinion began.

It was also noted that “in order to ensure free and unfettered debate on matters of public concern, the Supreme Court has adopted the actual malice standard, according to which anyone who publishes information of public importance that may affect the honor of public officials, public figures or individuals who have intervened in public matters must legally respond only if the aggrieved party proves that the information is false and that it was published with knowledge of its falsity or with marked disregard for its truth.”

The Public Prosecutor’s Office also highlighted that “the public interest aroused by the case stems from the extremely serious incidents reported, which included the disappearance of a newborn girl from a clinic, a maneuver to conceal this kidnapping by burying the body of another deceased child, and the existence of a child trafficking network, operating in different regions of the country and linked to public officials and medical professionals.”

In this context, it was emphasized that “a sensitive issue such as the kidnapping and commercial exploitation of children, in which political figures were also involved, has, as expected, reached public importance and great media coverage.”

Within the framework of this analysis, the Public Prosecutor’s Office noted that “in various television programs, the broadcaster addressed this issue, while providing sufficient space to hear the different versions of the issue and for her guests to freely present their ideas and positions.

Participated in these programs were the couple, the doctors who attended the birth, the clinic authorities, the journalists Daniele Tognetti and Jorge Taranto – who conducted journalistic investigations into the case – and the lawyers of the complainants and the accused. There, multiple hypotheses were put forward about the girl’s alleged disappearance – from a maneuver by the parents to claim damages against the clinic, to the existence of an international network dedicated to child trafficking – and all kinds of opinions were expressed on the matter.

According to him, “the handling of information related to the case did not reflect a biased version – or even a false version – of the facts, but rather allowed different voices and speculations to be heard regarding a sensitive issue such as child abduction and commercial exploitation.”

And opinion too rejection “The disclosure of certain data about his family life and the lives of his daughters violates the right to privacy of the family group, especially the girls,” and argued that the way the journalists and producers “organized the transmission of the expressions in question here did not result in an interference with the privacy of the actors and the girls sufficient to overcome the public interest associated with the publication of those contents.”

The Public Prosecution concluded that “the interviewees’ statements, the host’s questions and comments, and the method of arranging the interviews through production did not exceed the legitimate social interest that protects freedom of expression and justifies some interference in private life, without revealing any behavior to which the defendants must respond.”

“This court Share A basis for the opinion of the Attorney General, and its conditions must be presented briefly. “For this reason, the extraordinary appeal is declared admissible and the appealed judgment is confirmed,” Rosati, Rosencrantz and Lorenzetti said.