Talka Appeal Court dismissed the appeal filed against Kanal 13 SA. by fake doctor Jorge Bravo Aralano, who filed a lawsuit to review the publication of the chapter "En su propio trampa" illegally and arbitrarily.
According to the rejected presentation, Bravo argued that the exhibition of the program would threaten him, disturbing him and depriving him of the legitimate use of constitutional guarantees, since the chapter was apparently the way he attended his patients without scientific support.
By unanimous decision, the First Chamber of the Appellate Court in Maul did not accept the appeal after it established that there was no illegality or arbitrariness in the execution of the program.
"In the opinion of this court, the work of the journalist team of the contested Channel 13 SA is involved in the legitimate use of freedom of information and the issuing of an opinion without prior censorship," the opinion says.
"The facts listed in the resource and referred to in the preceding paragraphs have a natural public interest or relevance. In this respect, the information submitted by the complaint of the television station is covered by Article 1 of Law No. 19.773 for freedom of opinion and information and for practicing journalism, which recognizes the freedom of opinion and without prior censorship and, consequently, do not have the character of an unlawful act which the applicant attributes to him, "the resolution adds.
The judgment points out that "Article 30 of Law No. 19,733, cited above, states that the following situations are, inter alia, of public interest for the purposes of the said article:" b) Those carried out in the pursuit of a profession or trade and whose knowledge has a genuine public interest; c) those consisting of activities to which the public has free access, free or difficult; (f) Those that consist in the commission of criminal offenses or guilty participation in them. "
The verdict adds that "the offending accusations that the applicant attributed to journalist Emilio Sutherland were not accredited in the proceedings, and therefore can not be considered in order to accept this remedy for protection."