Not really, it says: "Conocimiento efectivo por la demandada del contenido de los comentarios alojados por terceras personas en su web. Remisión de fax en el que se advierte de la existencia de estas comunicaciones lesivas al honor del demandante: Al rehusar este fax la demandada incumple su deber de diligencia."
Which translates: "Effective knowledge by the plaintiff of the stored messages by third-parties on his website. Fax receiving in which [the admin] was informed of the lascivious messages to the plaintiff. By refusing the FAX the defendant breaches his duty of diligence"
So this case was about sexual comments against a specific person for which the owner of the site refused to delete such comments; so little to nothing to do with censoring messages against the state.
Which translates: "Effective knowledge by the plaintiff of the stored messages by third-parties on his website. Fax receiving in which [the admin] was informed of the lascivious messages to the plaintiff. By refusing the FAX the defendant breaches his duty of diligence"
So this case was about sexual comments against a specific person for which the owner of the site refused to delete such comments; so little to nothing to do with censoring messages against the state.