Once again, the Media law something to talk about and this time it’s up to the Inter-American Press Society (IAPA) that questioned article 72, which had already been previously controversial by the UN and the UNESCO.
A statement from the Yep expressed his “alarm” and “rejection” to article 72 of the Media law approved in the Senate in mid-May. The agency claims that it was “added at the last minute to a project that imposes regulations on content.” The bill was approved in the Senate in mid-May and awaits approval in Deputies because revisions were added in the High camera.
“It generated questions and rejection in the media, academics and press organizations, among other sectors, considering it a setback due to its possible negative effects on the exercise of freedom of expression and for violating international standards on the matter,” the letter states. .
The questioning of UNESCO and the UN
After its approval in the Senate, at the end of May a statement signed by the representatives of the UNESCO Regional Office in Montevideo and the regional representative for America of the South United Nations High Commissioner, Ernesto Fernández Polcuch and Jan Jarab respectively; where the need to review the content of the new media law was pointed out.
The reason was the concern that the project had been processed “without a prior debate” – something also criticized at the level of the ruling party, which preferred to move forward quickly while it had the votes and discussed the initiative in the plenary session without going through a commission; but also due to the fact that the legal text is contrary “to international standards regarding freedom of expression”.
The fundamental point of contention is the article 72the addition at the request of Town meeting in exchange for their positive votes necessary to achieve a law pursued more than three years ago. The same, which states that “citizens have the right to receive political communication in a complete, impartial, serious, rigorous, partial and balanced manner among political actors”; “could involve prior censorship since the Executive Branch would have the power to determine the content broadcast by the media.
This aspect, highly criticized among the different Uruguayan parties, both opposition and pro-government, was pointed out by international organizations. Although they also questioned whether it is regulated in favor of business media concentrationwhile “reducing government transparency” regarding the granting of radio and television licenses.
“We call on the members of the House of Representativeswho must vote on this bill, so that they promote international provisions of human rights, as well as its subsequent consideration in consultation with social actors, including media, journalists and their associations,” the text added.
In addition, both organizations expressed that they remain “available for technical support and participation in the framework of a future debate on this bill.”
Source: Ambito
