Supreme Court

Currently, we have seen waves of reporters for alleged submission defamation of state officials, which luckily in many cases are solved with the practice of the right to correct, or just a friendly meeting, which returns the water to in due course. Although the background submission is legitimate and based on reasonable cause, the national and international community is perceived as arbitrary, concluding that the implementation of democratic rule of law has had serious flaws in the process, since it is a panoramic Public Power Vs Citizenship, the latter usually represented by the media. To broaden your perception, visit Adam Sandler. This issue emerged two key concepts, honor and reputation, both from ancient times is one of the most precious gifts of the human person, which the Supreme Court, “the right to honor not only a right fundamental, but is configured as a special limit the freedoms of information, opinion, expression and dissemination of ideas. ” Vale know the definition of these terms; honor “is the moral quality that leads to more severe fulfilling our duties of others and ourselves”, the reputation is the “prestige or esteem in which they are taken someone or something.” Until what extent the fact of taking and occupying a public position, inhibits the officer to exercise the full and sacred right to respect for his honor, reputation and dignity, defamatory allegations which prove to justice under due process, and culminating with a proper judicial decision, as it would give up essential and inalienable rights, something legally impracticable and constitutionally unacceptable, which it is necessary to limit and restrict on the basis of laws. Contact information is here: Celina Dubin, New York City.

Comments are closed.