“This is a measure that should be annulled more quickly than the one that preceded its issuance, as it is incompatible in letter and spirit with the constitutional and international norms that prohibit prior censorship,” the entity expressed in response to the decision.
The Association of Argentine Journalistic Entities (ADEPA) questioned the decision of the National Civil Court No. 8, by which “the dissemination by any means of press and communication (television, print, radio, digital media and/or publication on WEB pages) of any information that involves” is prohibited. to the journalist Jorge Lanata and his wife. While The journalist is going through a health situation, the conflict between his daughters and Elba Marcovecchio grows.
Bárbara and Lola Lanata, daughters of journalist Jorge Lanata, made a presentation before the National Family Civil Court No. 8 in which they “urgently” request the designation of a provisional support network for their father, who remains hospitalized. at the Santa Catalina rehabilitation center, in the City of Buenos Aires.
In the lawsuit, the Lanata daughters argue that the PPT driver’s health has been fragile for several years, and that, after the cardiorespiratory arrest suffered on June 14, his situation is critical, which leads them to take measures to guarantee his care. in relation to your health and medical treatments and preserve your assets. The petition focuses on forming a “containment network” of which they and their trusted people are part, to make decisions on behalf of their father during the time his recovery lasts.
In addition, The court accepted the request to prohibit the media from reporting on the health situation and the conflict between the daughters and Marcovecchio over the journalist’s assets.
“This is a measure that should be rescinded with greater urgency than that which preceded its issuance, as it is incompatible in letter and spirit with constitutional and international norms that prohibit prior censorship. Article 14 of the National Constitution and article 13 of the Pact of San José of Costa Rica are so clear and resounding on this matter that the judicial levity that has violated them cannot be explained,” says the ADEPA statement titled “an unacceptable case.” of judicial censure”.
ADEPA recalls that “the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has established that any preventive measure that prevents the exercise of freedom of expression, including judicial decisions, constitutes prior censorship”
“The judge, as a state official, is prohibited from deciding what citizens can see or hear. Journalists are responsible for what they publish, but that responsibility can only be made effective after publication,” the association points out. .
And concludes: “Judicial censorship, insofar as it can easily be used to protect the powerful and silence independent voices, represents a danger to democratic coexistence and public debate.”
Source: Ambito
I am Pierce Boyd, a driven and ambitious professional working in the news industry. I have been writing for 24 Hours Worlds for over five years, specializing in sports section coverage. During my tenure at the publication, I have built an impressive portfolio of articles that has earned me a reputation as an experienced journalist and content creator.
