On Friday, October 29th, the court's sentence was handed down [es] for the offensive libel suit brought by the former government minister and parliament member Jorge Mufarech Nemy [es] against the law school graduate and blogger José Alejandro Godoy [es]. The judge's ruling calls for a suspended sentence of three years imprisonment, commuted to a three-year probation as long as Godoy fulfills additional obligations: a payment of 350 thousand soles (approx. $125,000) and 120 days of community service. The reaction from the media and bloggers has been immediate [es]. The case began April, 14, 2009, when Godoy published a post [es] about the alleged threats made by Mufarech toward a parliamentary advisor. As a result, and as chronicled by the same blogger in another post from July 2009 [es], Mufarech sent him a notarized letter [es] requiring the removal of certain information because it was believed to be false. The claim was made on the basis of article 2, point 6 of the constitution of the Republic of Perú. If Godoy did not take down the information, Mufarech would take appropriate legal action. Godoy, instead of taking down the information, published comments by Mufarech on three cases where he had been charged with corruption. Godoy refused to take down the post (although what had been asked was only the removal of some information in the post) because he considered it at odds with freedom of expression. He also replied to Mufarech with a notarized letter of his own [es]. When faced with this in August 2009, Mufarech sued Godoy for a million dollars [es]. This is a key paragraph from the original post that sparked this legal firestorm: Una de las mayores joyas políticas de la primera parte de esta década es Jorge Mufarech Nemy. Ex Ministro de Trabajo con Fujimori y ex parlamentario de Perú Posible, este político tres grandes perlas durante su gestión: evasión tributaria por la compra de un Jaguar, impulsar medidas arancelarias para favorecer a sus empresas, gestionar con José Francisco Crousillat mejores tratos de los inspectores laborales para América Televisión en los 90’s y, por supuesto, su persecusión contra Fernando Rospigliosi. Curiously it wasn't even the main theme of the post (the threats against a parliamentary advisor) that caused the lawsuit, rather it was the assertions made about Mufarech's “shining achievements” while in office. The media and blogs have written that the lawsuit was because of the links added by the blogger to document what he said [es]. But this popular explanation isn't shared by everyone, especially among legal experts. The lawyer Miguel Morachimo writes in his blog Blawyer: La Resolución declara la culpabilidad de Godoy porque considera que las utilización de las frases “joya” y “tres grandes perlas” respecto del querellante resultan difamatorias. Podemos discutir bastante sobre el fondo, pero no podemos negar que ese es el motivo que aparentemente sustenta la decisión. Para la Jueza, no importa que se hayan linkeado o no las noticias periodísticas correspondientes. Según su criterio, lo verdaderamente ofensivo no es que se mencionen las investigaciones por corrupción anteriores (lo que sí quedaría acreditado con los links) sino que se califique como una “joya” al querellante y que se diga que sus antecedentes judiciales son “tres perlas”. Blogger Morachimo, besides being against the sentencing because he feels it excessive (the official sentencing can be read here [es]), also discusses an important point. How will this judgment become a precedent for new, similar cases? Lo que la Resolución dice es que se han colocado calificativos negativos a una persona con el ánimo de injuriarla. Por eso no toma el argumento del “reporte fiel” ni valora la libertad de la prensa para informar sobre hechos públicos, porque para la Jueza el problema no son los links sino los adjetivos con los que se presentan los links. Por ende, ese fallo no podría ser utilizado en otro proceso –ni como doctrina– para argumentar que uno es responsable del contenido difamatorio que puedan albergar otras páginas web a las que enlaza. Another law expert, Erick Iriarte, argues in his blog Lex Digitalis [es] that though he regrets this has happened to fellow blogger Godoy, it is necessary to recognize now what this will mean in determining if internet law will be treated like other communications mediums: La sentencia es sobre la responsabilidad por los contenidos y publicados por Godoy … Podemos discrepar sobre la sancion y sus implicancias para las libertades de Godoy, sin embargo las mismas estan enfocadas en el tema del delito de difamacion, asi sea por internet o no …. Internet no es un mundo sin ley ni jurisdiccion. ¿Responsabilidad?, ese es la palabra a tomar en consideracion en toda la sentencia.