the controversial norms of the Convention on freedom of expression and the media

© Provided by La Tercera
Third

“I was not entirely satisfied.” Thus, the conventional and journalist Patrick Fernandez (Socialist Collective) defined what was voted yesterday by the Fundamental Rights Commission of the Constitutional Convention on freedom of expression. In particular, the instance approved -the step prior to the vote in plenary- a series of regulations on the media that they mark a substantive change with respect to what the current Constitution establishes on this subject.

For example, one point that was discussed among the convention members of the commission was the subsection on the presence of native peoples in public and private media. Specifically, it states that the State will ensure and promote “the presence of indigenous cultural diversity in the public and private media, in their respective languages”, without individualizing whether it refers to those that use the electromagnetic spectrum -state property- and those that do not. Along with this, the same paragraph maintains that the State should adopt “Effective measures to guarantee the establishment of their own indigenous communication media”.

This idea was approved with 25 votes in favor and eight once morest. Fernandezwho voted once morest, explained this morning in Radio Duna who opposed this norm because the concern for pluralism does not require precise specifications. “There is a tendency (…) that leads many to repeatedly seek to stand out and be noticed, for example, when it comes to indigenous peoples,” he said.

In this sense, there is a paradigm shift compared to the current Constitution, since it only establishes principles and there is no rule that establishes any type of promotion or active position of the State before a specific content in public and private media.

For her part, the journalist and conventional Beatrice Sanchez (Frente Amplio) pointed out that from their collective they consider it essential to guarantee the right to freedom of expression. However, he recognizes that it must be overcome “the outdated conception that reduces it only to the right to inform without prior censorship and to receive information”.

Sánchez explained that “in a country like Chile, with a high concentration of media ownership and centralism, pluralism and diversity must be safeguarded as essential factors of freedom of expression and democracy”. For the same reason, she maintained: “We need a more active role of the State and not merely passive, limited to not censoring. This is nothing so new, it is indicated in 1987 reports before the IACHR.”

This discussion took place in the middle of the debate on the article on freedom of expression in the commission, which has already been dispatched. Among its paragraphs, there are ideas such as the right to found media -as the current Constitution also does-, the prohibition of the “propaganda” in favor of hate speech and the responsibility of the media “ensure the plurality of opinions and information”.

In addition, what is approved includes the idea that the State should promote and respect the existence of public, regional, local and community media, “ensuring equitable access and participation (…) in a media system (…) diverse, pluralistic, transparent, inclusive, intercultural, multilingual and decentralized.”

It is also postulated that the law will promote community information of the peoples and their presence in the communication system and the promotion of human rights. Along with these, the conventionalists of the commission proposed that the State should guarantee and promote “media education with a gender perspective, human rights, decentralized and multinational”.

In addition, hehe Fundamental Rights Commission rejected a paragraph for article 6 of the report that sought to establish that legal persons can have and create means of communication. As only the word ‘people’ remained, as already approved in ownership, some constituents -such as the journalist Barbara Rebolledo (RN-Evópoli-IND)- warned that the media belonging to a company might be at risk.

In this sense, this followingnoon the conventional Let’s go to Chile that are part of the Fundamental Rights Commission issued a statement explaining that all the media, as well as any other legal person, would be “exposed and unprotected before the state authority”, since the latter might “try to censor their content and the media would have no legal basis to defend themselves, because the possibility of issuing an opinion as a legal person would no longer be within their rights”.

The rules on denial

The Fundamental Rights Commission also approved -by 18 votes in favor and 15 once morest- an indication presented by the conventional Dayyana González (Constituent People) which points to the prohibition by law of “the denial or justification of serious, massive and systematic violations of human rights.”

The proposal was backed by conventional Broad Front, Constituent People, Chile Digno, the Plurinational Coordinator and reserved seats. Meanwhile, he was rejected by the right, the Socialist Collective, the Approval Collective and Non-Neutral Independents.

Regarding the indication that seeks to prohibit “propaganda” in favor of war or hate speech, the conventional Rebolledo considered that, in practice, the text “has very little freedom of expression.” This, as he explained, because it restricts it beyond international consensus. “It might happen that a journalist is censored for making a story regarding the Holy War, since the Western view is very different from that of an extreme Muslim. He might feel that he has incited hatred towards his belief.”commented.

For Rebolledo, one of the most complex approved indications is the one that alludes to denialism, because the UN Human Rights Committee does not recommend penalizing expressions on historical facts. “What will historians do? They will no longer be able to write regarding past events that involve human rights violations. In other words, they will be at the mercy of what the legislator interprets as happening 40 years ago,” questioned.

For her part, the constituent and journalist Patricia Politzer (Non-Neutral Independents) He pointed out today on Twitter his position once morest regarding denialism. “I do not share the sanction of denialism. In my opinion, it is more efficient and democratic to face it with public debate and, above all, education from childhood”, he commented.

There were also reactions on social networks on this point. One of them was the lawyer Philip GonzalezSpecial Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants of the UN, who pointed out that the norm on denialism does not conform to international standards.

Proposal for the Constitution of Chile to sanction denialism does not correspond to international standards. The UN Human Rights Committee -the body in charge of the authentic interpretation of the I’ntl Covenant on Civil and Political Rights- has pointed out that “the laws that penalize the expression of

— Felipe González Morales (@UNSR_Migration) February 23, 2022

Topics that coincide with the Knowledge Systems Commission

Meanwhile, the Commission of Knowledge Systemswhose articles report will vote between this Thursday and Friday in plenary, also approved a series of initiatives on the subject. For example, he put forth ideas such as that peoples and nations “have the right to equal access to all media and information, in their own languages.” It is also postulated that the State would be in charge of promoting and facilitating the creation of communication media, “ensuring equal space for their effective transmission.”

On this last point, the lawyer and conventional Ricardo Neumann (Let’s go for Chile)who is a member of this commission, recognized that norms of the right to communication allow a good level of freedom and pluralism, but The article on media education is contradictory, since it establishes that “informative work must be subordinated to certain ideological perspectives, such as gender, restricting the freedom of information that was enshrined in previous articles.”

Article 8 of the report of Knowledge Systemsthe last referred to the media, states that any person “offended or unfairly alluded to by a means of communication and information” would have the right to have their rectification disseminated free of charge by the same means, a proposal similar to that present in the current Constitution .