The defense of the Paisa singer considered that the appeal is inadmissible and that “Perra” does not contain expressions that affect the plaintiff or the black communities.
The defense of J Balvin asked the Council of State to reject, as inadmissible, the tutelage presented by Leonardo Santo Petro Llorente against the interpreter for the song “Perra”, in which he collaborates with the Dominican Tokischa and in whose video is shown to the paisa singer carrying two black women with dog ears and nose in a quadruped position and with the leash around their necks as if they were pets.
“It does not contain precise, direct and unequivocal expressions aimed at affecting the good name, honor, equality and dignity of the plaintiff or of the black or Afro-descendant communities,” defended the singer’s lawyer, Diego Jose Ortega, in an extensive text.
As he argued, “The composer publicly explained the scope and purpose of the expressions used in her creation, which totally differs from the interpretation given by citizen Petro Llorente ”.
The appeal was filed against the singer Álvaro José Osorio Balvin, known in the artistic world as J Balvin, against the Presidency of the Republic, the Presidential Council for the Equity of Women, the Ministry of Culture and the Legal Commission for Protection of the Rights of the Black or Afro-Colombian Population Communities of the Congress of the Republic.
Through the guardianship, the protection of the fundamental rights to non-discrimination, equality, dignity, good name and honor of women is requested, those that Petro Llorente (and others) consider violated both by the song and by the video clip.
The lawyer added that J Balvin made a video in which he offered excuses to anyone who might have been affected by artistic creation, with special emphasis on the Afro-descendant community and women, which is precisely what the plaintiff intends.
–
At the plaintiff’s consideration, in “Bitch” there are words “directly and openly humiliating, sexist, racist, sexist, misogynistic and against the dignity of the human person of women”.
The defense insisted that “the interpretation -women must be dominated and mistreated corresponds to an eminently subjective judgment of the receiver of the message and not of the author or the singer”, since “in fact, the composer publicly explained the scope and purpose of the expressions used in her creation, which is totally different from the interpretation given”By Petro Llorente.
The lawyer also considered that freedom of artistic expression is a fundamental right of immediate application, capable of being protected by means of the tutela action. “Any act, private or of authority, that seeks to stop the development of the vital impulse of the creative man, would constitute an affront to his human dignity”, added.
In this sense, he rejected “that the administration of justice be used so that under the guise of the exercise of a right those of others are violated on a whim.”
In the opinion of the defense, society and especially consumers of digital content are able to assess whether or not an artistic expression conforms to their preferences, so they can choose for not seeing or hearing them, being able to even generate or participate in discussion spaces, but without implying “that the public authorities must intervene so that under an arbitration without objective considerations, delete or prohibit the creation or dissemination ”.
– – .
