Quien o quienes deciden que es legal en internet
Surely you have heard about the controversies that have arisen in the legal framework of services such as Uber or Airbnb. And we are facing new challenges in the legal framework that no one knows how to respond. Although most laws are different in each country, this article will give you a rough idea of what is allowed and what is illegal on the internet. So that you can protect your website and avoid headaches due to lack of knowledge. “Quite the opposite,” says Larry Downes, a research associate at Stanford University School of Law. “If given the ability to regulate the Internet, the government can impose tariffs and prices that weigh on the market. This type of regulation applied in the last century, when there was a legal monopoly on telephony, which happened until 1984. In addition, it means that state and local governments can also©levy taxes and fees, making services more expensive. “Fraud is, of course, just as illegal online as it is in the offline world. However, both online and in real life, there are legal considerations that need to be considered. Here are some basics about what is legal, what is not and the grey areas (the points that are not yet clear in their definition).
And of course, if you have specific questions, it is recommended to consult an online law lawyer. The idea is to limit the power of private companies that unilaterally decide who has access to their communication technologies (Facebook, Twitter, Tiktok, etc.) and control databases containing millions of personal data. As María Solange argues, the means by which the exercise of freedom of expression can be restricted are becoming increasingly sophisticated. Simply restrict the use or access to the Internet or restrict your own settings to interfere with this right. At the same time, however, there are potential risks arising from inappropriate use of the Internet, such as glorification of national, racial or religious hatred, incitement to crime, attacks on the privacy or honour of individuals. So far, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has resolved conflicts between the right to privacy and freedom of expression. The latter has prevailed in many cases, unless it has been proven that the person exercising this right did so with “real malice”, i.e. by disseminating false information with intent to cause harm, or with “actual malice”, with inexcusable negligence or reckless negligence. In the case of Mexico, the Supreme Court also ruled on freedom of expression.
In accordance with case law 1a./J. 32/2013 (10a.), it stated that there is a general presumption of constitutional cover for all external expressions: “The relationship between freedom of expression and personal rights such as honour is complicated when the former are exercised to criticize a person in such a way that he feels violated. The complexity lies in the fact that the state cannot privilege a particular criterion of decency, aesthetics or decency over statements that might be well received, because there are no uniformly accepted parameters that can delimit the content of these categories, so that they constitute too vague restrictions on freedom of expression to be constitutionally permissible. Indeed, debate on issues of public interest must be uninhibited, robust and open, and can include fierce, corrosive and unpleasantly devastating attacks on public figures. Thus, not only ideas that are positively received or those that are considered harmless or indifferent are protected. These are the requirements of a plural, tolerant and open society, without which there can be no true democracy. For months, the battle seemed favorable to one side.