The judgment that is going around the world. A precautionary measure which stops between seeing the freedom of expression and prosecutor of the Spaniards.
Last Friday , march 22, the Audiencia Nacional Nº1 ruled in favor of AtresMedia, Onda Cero and Movistar against the social network and current platform with more than 900 million active users worldwide, Telegram.
One of the few social networks along with the new X since its purchase by Elon Musk, uncensored. Freedom of expression as a maximum. An application that effectively began with the sole purpose of connecting people, leaving no trace of their messages, since, unlike Whatsapp, Telegram does not take the information in conversations 1:1, currently it is much more than that.
A platform that unifies the connections, the creation of a digital wallet where you can make transactions even faster than the Bizum. A marketplace for collectibles. The “anonymity” in a way, since it is not necessary that the person that you add to Telegram have you phone number, but you can search with your name inside the app.
China, North korea, Pakistan are just some of the few countries that have banned Telegram on its territory, and now we add a new country, Spain. Something that in a democratic system like the one we live doesn't make much sense.
It turns out, the plaintiffs state that they claim the platform by the unauthorized use of audiovisual content is subject to copyright, and as a result, the judge Santiago Pedraz you understand that you must order blocking Telegram as a precautionary measure.
A precautionary measure is very controversial, since on the one hand we have the next European elections the 9th of Junein just 2 months, where a large part of the campaigns of one of the candidates is precisely this platform, the european Law of the Influencer that use this platform , as well as the controversial fiscal impacts that have Telegram to day of today, among others.
Prior to this and for the more profane in Law, I want to clarify that means a measure of cautionr, since they are temporary arrangements are adopted to ensure the effectiveness of a future judicial decision and can cover a wide range of actions. Its purpose is to ensure that the situation of fact or of law does not change while it resolves the main issue.
For that same reason, this decision will be appealed by the respondent to the High Court looking for an immediate review of this measure. Even if it could be taken as a constitutional right of freedom of expression and freedom of decision could also enter the Constitutional Court. In the next few days we will see what is going on with this measure. However, we have the absolution of Google for similar reasons, and even more severe , so that we can have a future case law on the subject.
If you want, you can leave your opinion in a totally respectful in the comments section.
