Global Freedom of Expression

Español

Canicoba Corral v. Acevedo

Closed Contracts Expression

Key Details

  • Date of Decision
    August 14, 2013
  • Outcome
    Monetary Damages / Fines
  • Case Number
    C. 1079. XLV
  • Region & Country
    Argentina, Latin-America and Caribbean
  • Judicial Body
    Supreme (court of final appeal)
  • Type of Law
    Civil Law
  • Themes
    Defamation / Reputation
  • Tags
    Political / philosophical opinion, Public Officials

Content Attribution Policy

Global Freedom of Expression is an academic initiative and therefore, we encourage you to share and republish excerpts of our content so long as they are not used for commercial purposes and you respect the following policy:

  • Attribute Columbia Global Freedom of Expression as the source.
  • Link to the original URL of the specific case analysis, publication, update, blog or landing page of the down loadable content you are referencing.

Attribution, copyright, and license information for media used by Global Freedom of Expression is available on our Credits page.

Case Analysis

Case Summary and Outcome

Rodolfo Arístides Canicoba Corral, a federal judge, brought a defamation suit against Sergio Edgardo Acevedo after Acevedo called Canicoba Corral “despicable” in a public interview. In an unexpected holding, Acevedo’s words were found to be insulting, excessively harsh, and not in the realm of tolerable criticism. As such, Acevedo was held liable for defamation against Canicoba Corral.


Facts

Judge Canicoba Corral’s defamation suit against Acevedo, the former governor of the Argentine province of Santa Cruz, stemmed from statements Acevedo made in an interview that Canicoba Corral claimed damaged his dignity and honor.

Acevedo’s statement that sparked this controversy included the use of the term “despicable” to describe Canicoba Corral in regards to his actions while in office. The Court of First Instance and the Appellate Tribunal held Acevedo liable for defamation, stating that his expressions were excessive and that the terms used surpassed the reasonable limits of criticism.


Decision Overview

The case was brought before the Supreme Court of Argentina, which handed down a surprising and regressive decision. The Court stated that the right to express critical opinions did not translate into impunity for and acceptance of expressions that are strictly and undoubtedly insulting and reasoned that judges could not be expected to tolerate these insults and be denied protection because of their position. The Court held that Acevedo’s use of the term “despicable” was an insult, different from tolerable criticism of a public official, and therefore held him liable for defamation against Canicoba Corral. The decision was all the more shocking in light of the fact that it came only 13 days after the Court had decided Sujarchuk v. Warley, a case that involved similar elements but resulted in an holding that was diametrically opposed to this one.

Justices Highton de Nolasco, Petracchi, and Argibay dissented. Keeping with the Court’s prior jurisprudence, the dissent argued that when opinions pertained to issues of public interest or to the actions of public officials in regards to their positions, the right to receive and impart information, in its social phase, must be granted a higher, more deferential respect than the right to intimacy or the honor of those who are in a public placement, even when those opinions that are vehement or hurtful.


Decision Direction

Quick Info

Decision Direction indicates whether the decision expands or contracts expression based on an analysis of the case.

Contracts Expression

The decision of the Supreme Court of Argentina to find Acevedo liable for defamation decidedly goes against the principle of freedom of expression. The ruling here stands in opposition to both the Court’s own jurisprudence and global standards, which sustain that expressions should be protected, even if they are vehement or hurtful.

Global Perspective

Quick Info

Global Perspective demonstrates how the court’s decision was influenced by standards from one or many regions.

Related International and/or regional laws

  • ECtHR, Lingens v. Austria, App. No. 9815/82 (1986)
  • IACtHR, Kimel v. Argentina, ser. C No. 177 (2008)
  • IACtHR, Tristán Donoso v. Panama, Series C No. 193 (2009)
  • IACtHR, The Last Temptation of Christ, ser. C No. 73 (2001)
  • IACtHR, Bronstein v. Peru, ser. C No. 74 (2001)
  • IACtHR, Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica, ser. C No. 107 (2004)
  • IACtHR, Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay, ser. C No. 111 (2004)
  • IACtHR, Fontevecchia y D’Amico v. Argentina, ser. C No. 238 (2011)

National standards, law or jurisprudence

  • Arg., Sup., Julio César Campillay v. La Razón, Fallos: 308:789 (1986)
  • Arg., Sup., Diego Rodolfo Gorvein v. Juan H. Amarilla, Fallos: 321:2558 (1998)
  • Arg., Sup., José Angel Patitó v. Diario La Nación, Fallos: 331:1530 (2008)
  • Arg., Sup., Silvia Baquero Lazcano v. Editorial Río Negro S.A., Fallos 326:4136 (2003)
  • Arg., Sup., Martín José Maiztegui v. Horacio Néstor Acebedo, M.151.XLIV (2010)
  • Arg., Sup., Norberto Julio Quantin v. Jorge Enrique Benedetti, Q.18.XLIV (2012)

Case Significance

Quick Info

Case significance refers to how influential the case is and how its significance changes over time.

The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court of Argentina decides cases on an individual basis, and its case law does not create binding precedents. However, the Court is the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution, and, as such, its decisions are highly persuasive.

Official Case Documents

Official Case Documents:


Reports, Analysis, and News Articles:


Have comments?

Let us know if you notice errors or if the case analysis needs revision.

Send Feedback