President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador will celebrate the second mass killing of media and journalists in his internationally criticized address. Top ten liesA new face to keep the morning alive and continue the strategy of distraction from the important issues. Within this path, he takes the opportunity to settle scores with the independent press, attempt to intimidate and seek prior censorship. His view of institutional lynching is that it is a circular dialogue where he exercises his right to respond only. It is not. Its exercise is an abuse of power and violates individual safeguards.
The president is moving toward international condemnation for attacking the press and restricting freedom of expression. He says otherwise, and was advised by his spokesperson, Jesus Ramirez, the inventor of the question top ten To stigmatize the press and journalists. The boss knows many things that are not true, which helps him in the public arena, but not much more than that. Lopez Obrador defends the morning as a space for his freedom of expression to say what he wants. However, as Mercé Barceló i Serramalera argued in a book on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, “Freedom of expression is a right that no one can exercise in the same way*.
He said that not all holders of the right to freedom of expression “have the right” to express themselves with the same freedom.” “The possibility of exercising the range of powers that freedom of expression includes as a right, in principle, is sometimes reduced or expanded in other cases, depending on the Who is its owner?
On the one hand, it places journalists, who “by reason of their profession also enjoy greater guarantees than the rest of the citizens in the exercise of freedom of expression”, because although they may be said to be no different from the rest of the citizens, “it is also true that the preferential value of freedom of information reaches its highest levels when Information professionals exercise freedom through the institutional tool for shaping public opinion, which is the press.
In contrast, it places civil officials, who must act in accordance with the principles of compliance with the law. “The limits to the exercise of freedom of expression stem from the nature of the job being performed and are related to the specific institution in which the official carries out his work,” said Barceló i Serramalera. This is what the Specialized Chamber of the Electoral Court did last week, when it decided that the president had violated the competition for the states of Nuevo Leon and San Luis Potosi, after he refused that he was exercising his right to freedom of expression, he said. , because it was made in a space for social networking and advertising, Al-Sabah.
The state must comply with its traditional obligation to simultaneously guarantee the right to freedom of expression and the right to honor, as established and protected by the American Convention and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, and there is well-established legal jurisprudence in this regard. if Kimmel vs Argentina. This lawsuit began in November 1989, when journalist and writer Eduardo Kimmel published The San Patricio Massacre, in which he analyzed the killing of five religious people during the Argentine dictatorship in the 1970s and criticized the actions of the authorities, in particular the judge, who sued him for defamation and sentenced He is imprisoned for a year.
Kimmel appealed the ruling, and eventually they agreed with him after a trial in which both parties made claims that conflict between the right to freedom of expression on matters of public interest and the protection of the honor of public officials. The decision indicated that it was necessary to ensure that both matters were practiced, stressing that the spread would depend on the weighting made through the proportionality rule. That is, not all, depending on their responsibility, are the same in the Aristotelian spirit. So he left her sitting:
“With regard to the content of freedom of thought and expression, the Court noted that those under the protection of the Convention have the right to seek, receive and impart ideas and information of all kinds, as well as the right to receive and know information and ideas disseminated by others. This is why freedom of expression has an individual dimension. and a social dimension.This requires, on the one hand, that no one be arbitrarily hindered or prevented from expressing his thinking, and thus represents a right of every individual; but it also means a collective right to receive any information and know the expression of the thoughts of others.
However, freedom of expression is not an absolute right. Article 13.2 of the Convention, which prohibits prior censorship, also provides for the possibility of claiming subsequent liability for the abusive exercise of this right. These restrictions are exceptional in nature, and should not, what is absolutely necessary, restrict the full exercise of freedom of expression and become a direct or indirect mechanism of prior censorship.”
The Argentine court decided that the principle of proportionality had been violated, affecting Kimmel’s rights and issued a ruling on the merits, compensation and costs for which the Argentine State complied. Lopez Obrador could file a lawsuit like this, not against a Mexican Kimmel but potentially against several Kimmels. It is not supported by jurisprudence, and may eventually lead to the Mexican government’s reparations and costs, although he is no longer sent at the National Palace.
*Professor of Constitutional Law co-authored Fifty Years of the Universal Declaration, curated by Manuel Ballado and José Antonio García Regueiro for the International Center for Policy Studies, edited by Bush, Barcelona, 1998. p. 243.