Attorney General’s statements go against freedom of expression

These statements are meant to intimidate the citizenry because the Attorney General threatens to investigate those who give their audio or video material of the explosions to anyone other than the authorities as an obstruction of justice. 

The Attorney has confused criminal investigations with the constitutional limits of freedom of expression. He forgets, for example, a number of the Constitutional Court’s sentencings (many of which he approved when he served as Magistrate of the Court) which say  that, “the right of the source is a constitutional right, as much as it is for the content.” Montealegre has the obligation to process those who obstruct justice when it occurs, but his current stance is contrary to the Constitution. By referencing general future actions directed to all citizens, the Attorney General generates an environment that inhibits the free exercise of speech and the press.

It’s understandable the authorities are under pressure to solve the case, but it is precisely in these moments that democratic states are called to guarantee civil liberties, unlike in this case, sending messages fitting of authoritarian regimes or societies built on fear, both of which are contrary to the ideals of free citizenry and those who defend the Constitution.

The Foundation for Freedom of Press (FLIP) wants to remind the media and journalists of their right to access and share documents or materials that support their reporting.  This is their constitutional right. But it is not just the right of journalists; everyday citizens have the right to give information to journalists when they consider it to benefit the rest of society.  Freedom of information consists precisely in that the state does not have a monopoly over it, and citizens can generate, use and share their own.

Therefore, any official action or attitude that disincentivizes or limit a citizen’s decision to share information directly restricts freedom of expression. This is not only because the job of the media and journalists becomes impossible. The general public’s right to information and to be informed is diminished.  In some way, the Attorney General’s statements impedes the public debate about topics and happenings of interest to society.

A person, journalist or media that uses an audio or visual source improperly to inform can only be held accountable, even in court, after the report is published or broadcast according to the American Human Rights Convention. Thus, it is not appropriate to attribute responsibility before the material has been given or used. Videos, audio and photographs should be shared and used with the stipulation that the information is true, impartial and does not directly affect the rights of third parties. Judicial authorities have privileged access to sources of information but that access is not exclusive.

Lastly, the relationship between sources and journalists is vital to informing the public, therefore, if the State has the duty to respect freedom of the press, it should also guarantee that the relationship between the pubic and the press flow unrestricted. The Attorney General’s statements do not steer this direction.

FLIP urges  the public to be aware of their civil liberties and supports journalists who present true and impartial information, understanding that these are the only limits the right of information has.