Freedom of the Press
 |
|
Government-sponsored forum to denounce "media terrorism," Caracas, 2009.
|
The Press Emblem Campaign, a Swiss-based NGO, declared Latin America to have been the most dangerous region in the world for journalists in 2010. Last year, the NGO counted 37 journalists killed in Latin America, a third of the world’s total (14 in Mexico, 10 in Honduras, 4 in Colombia and Brazil, 2 in Venezuela, and one each in 3 other countries).
Throughout the region, though, reporters’ work is also complicated by states pursuing non-violent, legal means. A recent trend has been the proposal or passage of laws that prohibit or punish certain types of reporting. Nearly all of these laws have a noble stated purpose, but suffer from a vagueness of language that can open the door to abuse. In particular, these laws appear to enable leaders to silence critical or investigative journalism.
The most recent example is in Ecuador, where citizens will vote this year on a referendum to change the Constitution and introduction of new laws. One question on the ballot asks whether voters would favor “a Communications Law that would create a Regulation Council to regulate broadcast and print media that contains violent, sexually explicit or discriminatory messages, and establishes criteria to hold the broadcasters or media outlets responsible.”
The ballot measure could pass, since most citizens naturally oppose messages of violence, discrimination or other offensive content. However, critics of the proposed law note that it may empower the Ecuadorian government to review and approve all news reporting before its publication or broadcast. “Its objective,” said Vicente Ordoñez of Ecuador’s National Journalists’ Union, “is to establish prior censorship of journalists’ work.” This would be a large step backward for freedom of expression in Ecuador.
The Ecuadorian proposal follows a measure sent to Nicaragua’s pro-government-majority National Assembly in February that, as part of a law to punish violence against women, would have created the crime of “media violence” (violencia mediática). This provision was later withdrawn.
In January, Panama’s National Assembly considered a law, encouraged by President Ricardo Martinelli, that would have made it a crime of up to four years’ imprisonment to “offend, insult, publicly vilify” the president or other public officials. This bill was also withdrawn.
In December, the National Assembly of Venezuela approved changes to the country’s Organic Telecommunications Law and Social Responsibility on Radio and Television Law. “The social responsibility law,” CNN explained at the time, “explicitly states that no broadcaster or internet provider can broadcast things that incite hatred, cause ‘anxiety or unrest among the public order’ or promote the assassination of leaders.” With such vague terms as “anxiety or unrest,” “alteration of public order,” “motivating intolerance” or “ignoring authority,” the law is written in such a sweeping way that it could conceivably be applied to all opposition media.
In November, Bolivia approved legislation with another laudable goal – combating racism – that included another troubling provision. The country’s new Law Against Racism would impose fines on, or even suspend the licenses of, media that are publishing or broadcasting racist or discriminatory messages. The trouble is that the government gets to decide whether an article or broadcast meets the standard that would trigger a fine or clusure – and the criteria it uses could be politicized. Much depends on the regulations that the government will develop to implement the law. During a November visit to Bolivia, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navanethem Pillay warned, “Prohibiting the dissemination of racist ideas, if not adequately regulated, could affect the right to freedom of expression. … [I]nternational law requires that limitations be stipulated by law, that they be defined in a clear and precise manner, and that they be implemented by an independent body.”