 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Text removed
editThis reads like an opinion section. If it comes from a secondary source, it should be cited.
With the increasing use of social networks, this decision is highly important, as it set important limits to such use in connection with children. As said by the Court, children do not have the sufficient maturity to use such networks and there are plenty of risks, that may even endanger “responsible adults”. It is a fact that the use of children images may be used for malicious purposes as child pornography or even to ventilate family problems (as in the case of AA and BB), in which the most affected one is the child. Finally, regarding the clarification made by Magistrate Vargas, it may be considered that both rights were violated: data privacy and free development of personality, as both rights are directly related. The right of the free development of personality may be exercised by deciding on opening or not a social network account. The data privacy right is exercised when the person decides which information wants to disclose and the manner to disclose it.