English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Cases of convictions for expressions spread on social networks are becoming more frequent. The purpose of the paper is to reflect on the need for the courts to conduct an adequate analysis of the facts before determining that a criminal offense has been committed for the publication of a message on those networks. This analysis will be the only way not to reduce the scope of freedom of expression in front of an ever more immoderate expansion of criminal types such as those contained in art. 578 CP. The analysis of the application of this norm by the courts, however, shows that there are not still homogeneous and constant criteria that allow a constitutionally adequate interpretation of this criminal norm, respectful of the function of freedom of expression in our system. The work, starting from this variable and in many ways contradictory jurisprudence, tries to advance in the search of such criteria.

Opinar, enaltecer, humillar: respuesta penal e interpretación constitucionalmente adecuada en el tiempo de las redes sociales