A “legal muzzle”, as they are informally called, is a precautionary measure created to preserve the names or identities of people who have been victims of a crime and to prevent them from being named in order to protect their image and integrity. (3) The judgment of Chamber II of the Civil Chamber and the Chamber of Commerce of San Isidro confirmed the provisional measure commonly known as the Legal Spokesman, which opposes the Family Court No. 5 of Dr. Carlos RUIZ. Ruiz`s decision states: “Wanda Nara will refrain, personally or through an intermediary, from disseminating or disseminating news, data, images and/or circumstances related to the de facto separation of the parties or any aspect of her marriage, family and children on media and social media.” (2) The Royal Spanish Academy, in its meanings 5, 6 and 7, defines the muzzle as follows: “5. Device, usually from leashes or wires, that is placed in the mouth of dogs so that they do not bite. 6. m. Sportilla, usually from Esparto, which, clinging to the head, is placed in the mouth for working and burden animals, so that they do not harm breads or stop eating. 7. m.tablet with iron spikes, which is placed on the calves so that the mothers do not let them suck. lema.rae.es/drae/srv/search?id=cw2yVK1BoDXX2pWshr77.
Previously, and emblematicly, we can cite the precautionary measure that was ordered, so that the federal judge María SERVINI DE CUBRÍA was not mentioned in the television show of Mauricio Rajmín Borensztein (Tato Bores) and that this led to a circumvention of the “legal muzzle” by the song performed by more than seventy artists and journalists: “Judge badu dubu día is the best thing there is.” Perhaps the result was even more damaging to the judge than the censorship she was seeking; but what is relevant is that, contrary to what was expressed by the first and second instances, the Supreme Court issued the first important judgment against the previous judicial censorship. Apart from that, I make a particular distinction. General complaints have a particular aspect when those who appear to be involved are minors. These are both cases where their images are used and cases where direct and compromising mentions are made about them. In this case, the plexus of the rights at stake, both at the national level and at the level of international treaties, requires special protection and protection, against which the right to freedom of expression yields. In such cases, therefore, as in the case of “Maradona c / Ojeda” or “López c / Nara”, it is understandable that they are excluded from any journalistic mention, unapproved and endowed with appropriate legal safeguards; However, this in no way extends to what adults may mention or relate to themselves and the appreciation or evaluation they may have of their mutual behaviours, actions and behaviours; All this will eventually be subject to subsequent liability. (7) Other recitals in the preamble state that “what the applicant requests is not legally substantiated, not even in the light of the treaties on which he relies”, argued the judges of the Chamber, citing a lesson according to which “freedom of the press is the guarantee of all others and is the defence of the collective person of the people. and a veritable force of minorities who thus make public the injustices and abuses of power of the majorities and curb their despotic attempts. “The real essence of the right to the press lies essentially in the recognition that everyone enjoys the power to publish their ideas by the press without prior censorship, this is done without the prior control of authority over what is said,” they added, quoting the current Member of the Supreme Court. Carlos FAYT: “There is no prior censorship, but there is a subsequent responsibility,” the judges stressed, explaining: “What must be emphasized is that the press is the last but last refuge of the citizen, in the face of restrictive progress that undermines their freedom, their honor and their honor.
This is the cornerstone on which a democratic system is built, on which the republic is based, beyond the possible abuses that can be committed – a qualification that will always be subjective.” “Every citizen of a republic has the right to manifest what he thinks and to contribute to common happiness by paying tribute to his thought. If the authorities among us have restricted this right, they have done evil and have failed in the first duty of any human authority, which is to grant man what God himself does not deny him,” they concluded, citing the note sent by the General Constituent Congress to General Justo José de Urquiza.