Global Freedom of Expression

Joaquin Miguel Morales Sola

Closed Mixed Outcome

Key Details

  • Mode of Expression
    Books / Plays
  • Date of Decision
    November 12, 1996
  • Outcome
  • Case Number
    Fallos: 319:2741
  • Region & Country
    Argentina, Latin-America and Caribbean
  • Judicial Body
    Supreme (court of final appeal)
  • Type of Law
    Criminal Law
  • Themes
    Defamation / Reputation
  • Tags
    Public Officials, Public Interest

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

The Supreme Court of Argentina reversed a conviction against an author accused of slander by a public official. Author Joaquín Morales Solá was first convicted of slandering Dante Giadone, a public official, after he made negative comments about Giadone in his book. The Court cited the principle of “actual malice” and reasoned that the right of the public to access information that is of general interest and the need for freedom of the press outweighed a public official’s right to honor. Moreover, the Court found that no harm had come to Giadone’s name or honor.


The case against Joaquín Morales Solá reached the Supreme Court of Argentina after an appellate court had overruled the previous judgment and convicted him on charges of slander. Charges were originally brought against him after Dante Giadone claimed that his name had been slandered by Morales Solá when he wrote  negative comments about Giadone in a passage in his book.

Decision Overview

In its judgment, the Supreme Court of Argentina made use of the “actual malice” doctrine to reverse Morales Solá’s slander conviction (the Court did not use this exact term, it merely employed the principle). The Court held that the protections geared toward maintaining the honor of public officials, as Giadone was at the time the facts were publicized, should be dimmed in favor of the right to information and freedom of expression in matters that address facts that are of public interest.

The Court also found that the burden of proof, which had been shifted to Morales Solá in earlier decisions, violated his presumption of innocence. The Court stated that the requirement of proving the accuracy of the facts alleged went against the right to information and freedom of expression. The burden of proving the damaging effect of the phrases published and the knowledge of the falseness, or the reckless disregard for whether the statements were true or not, should have been charged to the complainant.

The Court also declared that no harm had come to Giadone’s name or honor.

Decision Direction

Quick Info

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

Mixed Outcome

The Supreme Court of Argentina upheld its principle that in order for the interference with the right to freedom of expression to be justified in instances that implicate areas of public interest and involve the reputations of public officials, a higher standard is required.

Global Perspective

Quick Info

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

Table of Authorities

National standards, law or jurisprudence

  • Arg., Constitution, art. 14
  • Arg., Const. Nac. Article 32
  • Arg., Sup., Manuel Eduardo Abad, Fallos: 315:632 (1992)
  • Arg., Sup., Julio Alfredo Ramos, Fallos: 314:1517 (1993)
  • Arg., Sup., Jorge Antonio Vago v. Ediciones de la Urraca S.A., Fallos: 314:1517 (1991)

Other national standards, law or jurisprudence

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.

The decision was cited in:

Official Case Documents

Official Case Documents:

Have comments?

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

Send Feedback