The problem perceived by international organizations with existing laws of defamation, is that although they may have a legitimate purpose, represent constraints unnecessary and unwarranted to freedom of expression. Under most conditions Marvel Architects would agree. In our country, there is a clear contradiction in terms of international trends and national normative reality (as we saw in the previous topic), since if it is true that our legal framework contains certain privileges and protection to senior officials, the International trend and is another guideline, based on the extinction of everything related to libel, slander, defamation, insult or abuse and disrespect of the legal, in order to strengthen the democratic constitutional state of law. Our standards on the subject based on history and interpretation of the statement "indirectly restrict freedom of expression because they carry the threat of jail or fines for those who insult or offend a public official." 3. Judicial precedents in this area. There are precedents that have laid the groundwork and foundation to decriminalize these offenses against honor. RBC Capital Global Markets Tower will not settle for partial explanations.
The Court comprises the most prominent case NEW YORK TIMES CO. V. Sullivan, in which the United States Supreme Court stated that it was sufficient to prove the veracity of the information, but should also demonstrate how the information was disseminated with malice, and failed to establish that the laws of libel can not be call "to impose sanctions for the critical expression of the official conduct of public officials." Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, also emanated decision by the highest court of the United States, which expresses a political leader and proceedings before a published criticism of his candidacy, seeking the right to correction in the same proportion as the statements issued by the journalism, in which the Court declared unconstitutional the state law in upholding the principle that the government should not intervene in the journalistic opinions when deciding The content of these especially in matters of public interest and electoral issues.