The rumour in the parents’ group

This scenario teaches the difference between two rights the new Code separates carefully. On the one hand, families’ criticism of the education service is legitimate and protected: opinions and criticism about public functions and services are not defamation when they are supported by evidentiary elements and preceded by a reasonable verification of the information, and against public servants only expressions that affect their intimate or private life, or that are manifestly insulting or defamatory, are pursued (Art. 211.5 and Párrafo II, Ley 74-25, as worded by Ley 44-26). On the other, publicly imputing a specific and false fact that damages someone’s honour is defamation (Art. 208, Ley 74-25), and labels such as “corrupt”, thrown out without support, may be insult (Art. 210, Ley 74-25) — and this group’s rumour imputes, with a name and a photo, a very concrete fact that nobody claims to have experienced. If the charging were real and the school were public, the teacher would be a public servant (Art. 77, Ley 74-25) and the conduct could amount to passive bribery (Art. 292, Ley 74-25) or extortion by a public official (Art. 289, Ley 74-25) — all the more reason to take it to whoever can investigate it, not to the tribunal of the chat: a family may complain to the Dirección Distrital (the district education office) and, if not heard, to the Regional (the regional education office) and to the Dirección General de Orientación y Psicología (the national guidance and psychology directorate) (Art. 27 Párrafo III, Ordenanza 05-2023 — the MINERD school-coexistence rules), and the district’s technical staff are required to receive the complaint (Art. 43, Ordenanza 05-2023); within the school, the channel is the Comisión de Ética (the ethics committee) (Arts. 39 and 41, Orden Departamental 22/2023 — the MINERD code of ethics). Options a, c and d complement each other: verify before judging, channel the complaint with whoever experienced it, and stop the exposure of the person named while nothing is confirmed. Option b is the one that multiplies the harm in both scenarios: if the rumour is false, it destroys an innocent person; if it is true, it alerts the person named and contaminates the investigation that could prove it. Question for the group: what do we agree, as families, about what our group shares when “someone knows someone”?