Attacks on the Press - Committee to Protect Journalists

attacks on the press in 2009americas: brazilAmid the deteriorating climate, Clarín was subjected to a direct governmentattack. On September 11, about 200 tax agents raided the offices of thegroup’s newspaper, Clarín, after the paper ran a cover story alleging the governmentimproperly granted a farm subsidy. Clarín and others decried the raid asgovernment intimidation. The tax agency immediately backpedaled, saying theraid was conducted in error and claiming to fire two officials for carrying outthe action.The administration also claimed to be investigating who ordered the raid andwhy, but it disclosed no findings by late year. La Nación, citing tax agency documents,reported in December that Ricardo Echegaray, the agency’s director, hadordered the raid and that the two officials were never actually dismissed. No governmenttax probe was ever carried out against Clarín.Clarín was targeted in another episode with political overtones. The Teamsters,headed by close administration ally Hugo Moyano, briefly blocked the distributionof Clarín, La Nación, Perfil, and other newspapers in November, demandingthat the papers’ drivers be represented by the union. The newspapersand the publishers group Asociación de Entidades Periodísticas Argentinas complainedthat the union’s move was politically motivated.In November, in a major advance for press freedom, Congress decriminalizedlibel and slander. The measure followed recommendations made by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in a May 2008 ruling. The court, an arm ofthe Organization of American States, voided the 1999 criminal defamation convictionof journalist and author Eduardo Kimel. The case stemmed from Kimel’sbook, La Masacre de San Patricio (The San Patricio Massacre), in which he criticizedan investigation into the 1976 slaying of five priests during the militarydictatorship. The court also urged Argentine leaders to reform defamation lawsin line with regional standards.Journalists and free press advocates also hailed a January ruling by a federalappeals court that found the government was improperly withholding state advertisingfrom publications owned by the media group Editorial Perfil in retaliationfor its critical coverage of the Kirchner administration. The government appealedthe decision, and the case was pending in late year.CPJ and other analysts have found that Kirchner, following a systeminstitutionalized during her husband’s presidency, has manipulated the distributionof state advertising by withholding ads to critical media and rewardingfriendly outlets with government spots. Free press advocates havecontended that manipulative government advertising violates Articles 14and 32 of the Argentine Constitution, which bar censorship and guaranteepress freedom, respectively; and Article 13 of the American Convention onHuman Rights.BRAZILIn a major advance for press freedom, brazil’s highest courtstruck down a repressive 1967 law that criminalized broad swaths of sensitivereporting and set harsh potential penalties. But defamation laws remained a concernas penal code provisions allowed prison penalties for libel and slander. Anda flood of civil defamation cases continued unabated, in some cases leading lowercourts to issue censorship orders that barred news media from covering publicissues, including alleged corruption involving government officials and businesspeople.In April, the Supreme Federal Tribunal ruled that the 1967 Press Law, ananachronistic remnant of the country’s military rule, violated constitutional guaranteesof free expression. The court had earlier suspended 22 of the law’s 77articles pending its final ruling. CPJ and others had campaigned against the law,arguing that it was inconsistent with regional standards for free expression. Thepress law defined violations in sweeping terms that included reporting deemedoffensive to public morals; reporting a plaintiff found damaging to his reputationor offensive to his dignity; reporting the government deemed subversive; andreporting of “true” facts that might be considered distorted or provocative. Italso allowed authoritiesto censor media outletsand writers, seize publications,and impose prisonterms of up to threeyears for violations.The high court’s decisionbolstered a growingbody of international legalopinion that civil remediesprovide adequateredress for press offenses.In a landmark 2004 decision,the Inter-Americant o p developments»»Judges in defamation cases issue sweepingcensorship orders.»»Ex-police officers convicted in abduction,torture of O Dia journalists.44key statisticDefamation lawsuits filed by a singlecongressman. Complaints targetdozens of journalists for critical coverage.Court of Human Rights, the legal arm of the Organization of American States,said that critics of public officials must have “leeway in order for ample debate totake place on matters of public interest.” Laws that criminalize speech are incompatiblewith the rights established under Article 13 of the American Conventionon Human Rights, which Brazil has ratified. As the Inter-American Commissionon Human Rights stated in 1994: “Considering the consequences of criminalsanctions and the inevitable chilling effect they have on freedom of expression,7 07 1