Colombian court backs porn actress in Meta nudity case



Abusers cannot expect leniency simply because their cruelty travels through Wi-Fi rather than a clenched fist.

In short, courts are allowed to pass upon such an issue merely to determine who is entitled to possession de facto.

BlackRock is leading a debt sale targeting at least $12 billion to finance a massive data center project in El Paso,…

The ruling stated that due process protections apply even before an impeachment case reaches the Senate and that…

The circumstances in the present case unmistakably fall within the category of a spontaneous in flagrante delicto…
BOGOTA, Colombia (AFP) — Colombia’s Constitutional Court on Friday ordered Meta to change its privacy policies after ruling that it trampled the freedom of expression of a porn actress by closing her Instagram account.
Esperanza Gomez, one of Colombia’s best-known adult content actresses, said she posted photographs of herself in her underwear as part of her job.
Gomez, who has over 5 million followers on Instagram, said Meta’s decision to close her account affected her ability to work and said she was given no clear explanation.
Meta, which owns Facebook and WhatsApp as well as Instagram, argued that Gomez violated the platform’s rules on nudity.
But the court ruled that it acted in an “arbitrary” fashion in closing her account and “illegitimately restricted her freedom of expression.”
It ruled that Meta “applied its policies on nudity and sexual services inconsistently,” noting that other accounts with similar content to Gomez’s remained active.
In a far-reaching ruling, the court ordered Meta to “review and adjust Instagram’s terms of use and privacy policy, so that users are clearly aware of the mechanisms for challenging moderation decisions.”
The ruling did not specify sanctions for non-compliance.
Meta did not immediately react to the decision.
This is not the first time that a South American court has required a social network to change its policies.
In June, Brazil’s Supreme Court ruled that social media were directly liable for illegal content, including hate speech, and must immediately act to remove it.