The plaintiff sought relief from the administrator of a website (www.reclamos.cl) where people can leave anonymous public messages with complaints against companies and services. The plaintiff, the representative of a school, claimed that the site administrator should be held liable for a slanderous accusation posted against her. The plaintiff claimed that the accusations affected her constitutional rights of freedom of teaching and property. A co-plaintiff claimed that his freedom to work was equally affected. The Court of Appeals rejected the claim by recognizing the need to enforce freedom of opinion and freedom of information without prior censorship. Data protection and regulation of journalism were also mentioned by the Court to prevent identification of possible defendants. The Court of Appeals established that...
Plaintiff sought monetary relief from both the internet service provider (Entel) as well as the parent of the person that posted a defamatory content (see below Entel I). The Court recognized the lack of rules for internet content. General damages rules are to be applied. However, the action was rejected. The service provider is not liable under general rules as it could not control the uploaded content. Additionally, the natural person was held not liable as the alleged infringer was already of age.
Stating that liability for defamatory content - a false offering of sexual services by the minor daughter of plaintiff - may be exclusively casted upon the provider of the content, not the manager of the website or the provider of connection. This decision recognizes the lack of rules for internet content, but it also recognizes that only ex post control over content is possible or to be expected. Upon noticing “evidently” offensive content, providers should take measures to prevent further harm, but they are not liable for damages before that moment. The decision establishes, but does not explain, the principle of “freedom of the information that circulates on the internet”.