CIVICUS speaks with Fabián Werner, president of the Centre for Archive and Access to Public Information (CAinfo), about a Media Law being discussed in Uruguay’s Congress.
CAinfo is a Uruguayan civil society organisation dedicated to promoting the right to public information, freedom of expression and citizen participation.
What’s the state of civic space in Uruguay?
There is a consensus in civil society that Uruguay has experienced a sustained setback in terms of freedom of expression since 2020, which has led to a reduction in civic space. The negative changes started the moment the current president, Luis Lacalle Pou, came to power, as he immediately submitted to Congress the controversial Law of Urgent Consideration (LUC), a huge omnibus bill that included regressive changes to the freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.
For example, the LUC expanded the arbitrary powers of security agents to break up demonstrations, based on a highly questionable criterion on the use of public space. It was adopted in the midst of the COVID-19 crisis and hastily discussed, which means it didn’t receive the parliamentary treatment required for a law with over 200 articles on a wide range of issues. It should be emphasised that the LUC did not meet the objectives of an emergency law, which, in the context of an economic crisis, should have focused on providing tools to deal with the situation.
The regression of civic space in Uruguay is quite peculiar, as there have been no direct attacks on civil society, sources of funding or legal recognition of organisations, as has been the case in countries such as Ecuador and Nicaragua. What we are seeing instead is discourse coming from the highest echelons of government seeking to stigmatise journalists and organisations critical of the administration.
If the media law promoted by the government is approved, we will see an even greater setback.
Does Uruguay need a new media law?
Uruguay doesn’t need a new law, but rather proper implementation of the existing Law on Audiovisual Communication Services, which was passed following a participatory, open and democratic process, on the basis of advice by international experts and organisations. Civil society has repeatedly protested because there are elements of this law that simply aren’t being applied.
If the law currently being debated in Congress is passed, it will be a huge step backwards in terms of freedom of expression and the rights won by excluded groups and others who, prior to the current law, had never been recognised in legislation.
That’s why we believe the best thing to do would be to update the existing media law, in line with international standards of freedom of expression and with the aim of implementing those aspects that have not been implemented, rather than replacing it with another law that is totally regressive.
What changes does the bill propose?
It should be noted that the bill that the executive initially submitted was much worse. It came from the National Party, the president’s party, and hadn’t been negotiated with the other political parties that make up the ruling coalition. The discussion of the bill with other parties in Congress resulted in corrections and improvements.
But the bill exacerbates some problems and creates new ones. One of its most regressive elements has to do with concentration of media ownership, which affects diversity and plurality. Uruguay has a hyper-concentrated media system, and the new law would allow the legalisation of de facto situations that violate the current law. For example, Argentina's Grupo Clarín has eight television licences. If the current law, which sets a maximum of three, were applied, it would have to give up five. The new bill, coincidentally, sets the maximum number of licences a group can hold at eight. If passed, it would also consolidate the situation of four local groups, which far exceeds the limit set by the current law.
The bill also paves the way for the media to become more foreign influenced. The positive aspects of the current law that are being implemented include the provision that audiovisual media cannot have more than 49 per cent foreign capital. The new law would remove this limit, allowing a growing share of foreign content. It also proposes to abolish fee payments for frequency licences granted by the state, which allow companies to use part of the radio spectrum.
There is no doubt this bill has been drafted in agreement with large Uruguayan and foreign media groups. This explains the coincidence between the current media concentration situation and the legal cover the bill provides.
Will the new law affect the campaign for the general election in October?
This is a law tailored to the wishes and needs of big media groups. It’s conceivable that the fact that favoured media are beholden to the ruling parties ahead of national elections could have some effect.
One issue that has also been regulated by law is free election advertising. Under the current law, frequencies are public and companies must apply to the government for a licence to use them. In return, they are obliged to give political parties involved in election campaigns airtime to broadcast their election messages.
The broadcasters have called this an expropriation because it deprives them of profits they would make from selling this service. This is completely false, because you can only be expropriated of something you own, and frequencies belong to the state. Now the current government has decided to compensate TV channels for the use of these free minutes for election campaigns.
It is therefore to be expected that in this election campaign commercial free-to-air TV channels, the main beneficiaries of these changes, will somehow repay the government’s generosity for passing a law tailor-made for them.
How has civil society reacted to the bill and how has the legislative process progressed?
The Coalition for Democratic Communications, made up of several civil society groups, is leading the opposition to the repeal of the current law and the approval of this bill. Some opposition political parties have also spoken out against.
There hasn’t been a strong reaction from the public, mainly because most people are informed by the very media that would benefit from this reform, making it difficult for people to receive the information necessary to take a position on this issue. This is why there hasn’t been a massive reaction, unlike on other issues that have been much more widely covered by the media.
The bill was passed by the Senate on 14 May, with the votes of pro-government lawmakers and in the absence of the opposition. However, one member of the ruling coalition, the right-wing nationalist Cabildo Abierto party, introduced amendments to the bill aimed at allowing control over media content, in disagreement with the rest of the ruling coalition.
The content regulation proposed in the bill has also been rejected by the Inter-American Press Association, UNESCO, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and numerous international experts. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression has expressed concern about the possibility of legalising prior censorship and has urged Uruguayan lawmakers to comply with international standards on freedom of expression.
As a result of the amendments, the bill has been sent back to the Chamber of Deputies, where it will be taken up again on 4 June.
Civic space in Uruguay is rated ‘open’ by the CIVICUS Monitor.
Get in touch with CAinfo through its website or Facebook page, and follow @CAInfouy on Twitter and Instagram.
