Communications law specialists Graciana Peñafort and Dimián Loreti reflected on the current state of freedom of expression in our country.
On the occasion of a new commemoration of Journalist and Press Workers' Day, the Faculty of Political Science and International Relations of the UNR and the Rosario Press Union invited Graciana Peñafort and Damián Loreti to speak on the current state of freedom of expression in our country.
“I have a very pessimistic view of the current state of freedom of expression in Argentina,” began attorney Graciana Peñafort, former Director of Legal and Regulatory Affairs at AFSCA. “My feeling is that freedom of expression—and I'll go into more detail about it, the practice of journalism as a manifestation of freedom of expression—is an activity that is in danger, from things as basic as the withdrawal of media advertising to things as serious as the restrictions on the press.”
In this regard, Peñafort recalled the case of Jonatan Viale, who, in the middle of an interview with the President of the Nation, was interrupted by an advisor who asked him to drop a question. “We all remember that case, and I think it goes against the grain of journalism, which is more concerned with truth, not political operations. The problem is that we've become accustomed to calling journalists operatives, and they are very different things.”
Lawyer and communications law specialist Damián Loreti warned of the worrying decline in freedom of expression in Argentina. He noted that in a year and a half, not a single film has been financed for production, despite the fact that specific funds continue to be raised. To illustrate the seriousness of the situation, he cited data from the Index of Censorship compiled by Reporters Without Borders, an international organization recognized for its independence: in 2024, Argentina dropped 34 places in the world ranking of press freedom, and it is projected to fall 14 more places this year. "This is the same thing we criticize other countries like Cuba for," he warned, highlighting the contradiction between democratic discourse and practices that directly affect the right to information and free expression.
Peñafort, who also represented the National Government in the Supreme Court hearing in the case filed by Clarín regarding the unconstitutionality of various articles of the Audiovisual Communication Services Law in 2013, stated that the conditions for development are jeopardized by the lack of official advertising, the absence of competitions, various obstacles to obtaining new licenses, and even the severe restrictions on maintaining existing licenses. "We can observe cases of censorship and restrictions on access to frequencies and media outlets; these are not new issues in Argentina. But as has rarely been seen, those who practice journalism are being subjected to personal risk."
The Office of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, which reports to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, warned in its 2024 annual report about the accelerated deterioration of the environment for the exercise of freedom of expression in Argentina, evidenced by the executive branch's growing intolerance toward criticism and deliberative processes. "In a context of drastic reforms to state functioning, stigmatizing rhetoric by high-ranking officials has multiplied, particularly against journalists, media outlets, and, notably, against women journalists," Loreti noted.
Added to this are official statements seeking to discourage social protest and glorifying repression, further weakening the democratic framework. "In recent anti-government protests, attacks on media workers by both security forces and private individuals were documented, in a climate marked by the erosion of public debate."
Loreti also pointed to regressive changes at the institutional level, especially regarding access to information, the role of public media, and the allocation of government advertising. She also denounced the adoption of new regulations restricting the right to protest and substantial modifications (without adequate deliberation) to the Law on Access to Public Information, which deepen concerns about the current state of freedom of expression in the country.
In this regard, Peñafort also warned about an even more worrying phenomenon: the rise of self-censorship as a silent but effective mechanism for limiting public debate. "I see a severe curtailment of freedom of expression, but also something more serious: people are starting to remain silent out of fear," he said, alluding to the pressure felt especially on social media.
According to the professional, the first task is clear: "Defend our right to speak, to seek, to receive, and to define information." She also emphasized the importance of defending the right of others to express themselves, even when their speech is uncomfortable or difficult to tolerate. "There are speeches that I find deeply annoying, but that doesn't justify trying to silence them."
For the lawyer, freedom of expression can only be sustained within a framework of active tolerance. "There is no possibility of acknowledging difference in a world where there is no tolerance." Finally, she called for "raising the flag" in defense of the right to speak openly without reservation, because "that era of silence must never return."
Risks and censorship
Peñafort recalled the case of journalist Hugo Alconada Mon, who a few weeks ago leaked a document revealing that one of the main objectives of the National Intelligence Plan was to control communications, particularly targeting those who questioned the "total accounts" disseminated by those in power. The document reveals that the State Intelligence Secretariat (SIDE) opened the door to conducting intelligence work on journalists, politicians, and economists.
The lawyer reported that, following the publication, Alconada Mon suffered a series of threats and hacking attempts on her communication channels, without causing any institutional alarm. She also warned of a dangerous escalation of harassment against journalism, encouraged by sectors of the Executive Branch. "I am very concerned about the promotion of hate speech against the press. Javier Milei won with the typical scheme of the new right, which is the creation of an enemy," she stated.
The specialist explained that the President has targeted journalism as the new enemy, replacing "the caste," and that a hate speech is being constructed around it. "Journalists generally don't have security measures; they walk the streets like any other citizen. A month ago, journalist Roberto Navarro was in a hotel cafe and was insulted by another person, and then received a blow to the back of the head that left him hospitalized. The attack was related to his role as a journalist. And these things happen because hate speech does just that: it legitimizes the right to hate. It's a discourse that is directed against a group, makes them guilty of the situation, and therefore legitimizes violence against those who belong to that group."
Loreti pointed out that statements have been issued calling journalists "corrupt," "criminals with wiretaps," "liars," "thieves," and "extortionists," among other labels that seriously undermine the reporting process. He also publicly stated that it has been lightly stated that "85% of the media lie all the time," discrediting the work of communicators and journalists.
According to the professor, these stigmatizing expressions by high-ranking officials generate a climate of intolerance and animosity that places journalists and communicators in a position of vulnerability and risk.
He also highlighted a series of worrying developments regarding access to public information and press freedom. He questioned recent reforms to the accreditation system at the Casa Rosada, including the Executive Branch's proposal to create an "elite press room" with restricted access to journalists from "highly recognized" media outlets, a measure deemed by the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression to be discriminatory and contrary to inter-American standards. He also mentioned the case of a journalist whose credential was not renewed, which was interpreted as retaliation for comments she made against the President.
Hate speech is not an isolated phenomenon occurring only in Argentina; rather, it has been on the rise in many countries around the world. “What to do about it is a crucial debate. There is a supralegal element in the American Convention on Human Rights, also known as the Pact of San José de Costa Rica, which would somehow enable the sanctioning or prohibition of hate speech. Why isn't there progress on this path? First, because hate speech, as regulated, seems very similar to political censorship. And the other point is: What are the limits of the regulation? Also understanding, according to Article 13, that brief censorship is prohibited. It's a very delicate situation,” Peñafort explained.
In this way, he warned that the new right-wing movements are replicating systematic attack strategies that jeopardize fundamental rights. "The problem with these strategies is that they affect a systemic right, namely freedom of expression," he noted, explaining that without this right, we cannot speak of true democracy, just as a democratic system cannot be sustained without periodic elections. "It may have a dog face and bark like a dog, but if it doesn't have freedom of expression, it's not a dog; it's a freak that learned to bark," he concluded by way of comparison.
Photographs courtesy of the Rosario Press Union
Journalist: Gonzalo J. García