(PERIODISTAS/IFEX) – The following is a 17 April 2001 PERIODISTAS press release: On 10 April 2001, the Chilean Chamber of Deputies approved the Law on Freedom of Information, Opinion and the Practice of Journalism (ley de Libertad de Informacion, Opinion y Ejercicio del Periodismo), known as the new Press Law. Though various sectors recognise the […]
(PERIODISTAS/IFEX) – The following is a 17 April 2001 PERIODISTAS press release:
On 10 April 2001, the Chilean Chamber of Deputies approved the Law on Freedom of Information, Opinion and the Practice of Journalism (ley de Libertad de Informacion, Opinion y Ejercicio del Periodismo), known as the new Press Law. Though various sectors recognise the notable advances in the legislation, the final text does not completely eradicate the norms that shape “desacato” (“insult”) laws – one of the most regressive legal devices with regards to freedom of expression. The law will be analysed by the senate and approval is expected by next week.
The amendments introduced are the last chapter of a story that began on 8 July 1993 when former President Patricio Aylwin put forth the first draft to congress. This draft was approved by the Chamber of Deputies in September 1995 but was later modified by the Senate. It became difficult to reach an agreement between the most conservative legislators, who endeavoured to maintain their legal privileges when confronted with journalistic criticism, and those who, without presenting an overly bold position, felt that the legislation should slowly adapt to democratic life in post-dictatorship Chile. With no agreement between the two chambers, a commission made up of deputies and senators produced a report in May 2000, but their proposal was rejected by the Chamber of Deputies. On 11 August, the executive power sent Congress a veto that introduced 31 modifications intended to satisfy all sectors involved in the dispute.
The law approved by the Chamber of Deputies eliminates the Law on Publicity Abuses (Ley de Abusos de Publicidad, LAP) and introduces modifications to the State Security Law (Ley de Seguridad Interior del Estado, LSIE). The first law defines the public and private spheres and establishes penalties for those who report on the private lives of civil servants, even when that information is of interest to the public. Articles 6(b), 16 and 30 of the LSIE bestow judicial privilege upon the highest government authorities enabling them to initiate legal proceedings when they feel that they have been victims of defamation, insult or slander. These articles also allow military tribunals to judge civilians when the official in question is a member of the Armed Forces.
If the new Press Law is enacted, current court cases based on these two laws will no longer be valid. An example of this is the case of Alejandra Matus, who under Article 6(b) of the LSIE faces an arrest order and ban of her book “The Black Book of Chilean Justice” (“El Libro Negro de la Justicia Chilena”) (see IFEX alerts of 17 April, 26 and 15 March, 13 and 8 February, 11 January 2001, 27 December, 4 April 2000, 21 and 17 June, 5 May, 27 and 15 April 1999). Proceedings initiated by Airforce Vice Commander-in-Chief Hernán Gabrielli and outspoken Senator Francisco Javier Errázuriz against individuals, journalists and the press will also become inactive. Were Article 6(b) to be eliminated, defamation against high authorities will no longer be considered a crime against public order. The repeal of LAP means that the privacy of civil servants is no longer protected when the private acts reported on are related to issues that affect the public good.
Amongst the guarantees for the practice of journalism, the new law consecrates the right of journalists and others who receive information from privileged sources, such as photographers and photojournalists, to protect confidential sources. It also allows for evidence of “truthfulness” to be admitted in insult cases. As a result, journalists will not be found to be at fault when it is proven that the offensive declarations are based on the facts and refer to civil servants’ practices that are in the public interest.
Reform of the law also eliminates judges’ authority to prohibit the publication of information about court cases in progress and consecrates the conscience clause, which exempts journalists from writing or revealing that which goes against their convictions.
Despite the indubitable advances resulting from this law, freedom of expression continues to be restricted and Chile is far from meeting its commitments to international agreements, such as those resulting from the country’s ratification of the American Convention on Human Rights.
Criminal Code Articles 263, 264 and 265, however, still remain. Though less called upon, these articles apply “desacato” (“insult”) provisions similarly to Article 6(b) of the LSIE. Even with President Lagos’ promise to repeal these articles in a future bill and his willingness to do so, it will be very difficult to overcome the barriers erected by the most conservative legislators. The original bill put forth by the executive included the repeal of these articles but right-wing, centrist, and even some left-of-centre legislators pushed for these provisions to be maintained in exchange for the eradication of Article 6(b).
The approved law repeals Article 16 of the LSIE, which allows judges to seize and suspend circulation of press editions and radio and television transmissions when these media are accused of crimes against high-ranking government authorities. Article 30 of the same law remains intact, however, authorising judges to “order, as a first step (…) the collection and placement of any printed matter, books, pamphlets, records, movies, videotapes and any other object that was used to commit a crime, at the court’s disposal”.
Nevertheless, the most heated debate is not about the persistence of these restrictive provisions, but rather relates to the provisions on ownership and media circulation. Two proposals included in the government’s veto have been severely questioned and another outrightly rejected.
Articles 39 and 44 of the veto were approved, the first establishing the obligation to notify the Preventative Anti-monopoly Commission (Comision Preventiva Antimonopolios) of any change in ownership or control of media outlets. The second article limits individuals from owning or holding shares in more than one public television station, regardless of the percentage of ownership involved. Right-wing deputies voted against these articles, but members of the Concertacion (party alliance that governs Chile) imposed their majority.
The only article rejected was Article 10, which obliges print media with a circulation over 5,000 copies to declare their print run numbers. There was a consensus agreement that the publication of such information would be prejudicial for smaller media outlets – which tend to distribute information locally or regionally – and put them at a disadvantage when competing with larger media outlets for advertising contracts.
The bill approved by the deputies on 10 April respects Ricardo Lagos government’s proposal and its approval by the Senate is imperative. Reports from the University of Chile’s Freedom of Expression Programme state that Deputy Juan Bustos of the Socialist Party (Partido Socialista) concludes: “There was no political will to achieve more profound changes but at least this law is a step forward.”
