There are three recent judicial rulings that give primacy to freedom of expression and the right to information, whose transversal axis is the protection of journalists in the following cases: when they are sued for political violence against women; when they are attacked and stigmatized in government communication spaces and when journalistic work is guaranteed to learn about matters of public interest.
The first case was resolved unanimously by the Superior Chamber of the Electoral Court of the Judicial Branch of the Federation, where a federal representative promoted an action of political gender violence against an analyst and journalist, who had aired the alleged use of a military plane (provided by a former Secretary of State) to transport the legislator’s family, the matter is relevant because it leaves as precedent that lawsuits for political gender violence should not be used to silence journalists, and in matters where freedom is at stake of expression, the context, the facts, and the interaction between them must be valued; This precedent will be relevant to avoid frivolous complaints in this electoral process and in the future.
Another case was related to avoiding stigmatization committed by public servants to the detriment of journalists; in the specific case, an analyst-journalist had been repeatedly referred to during the morning conference (“morning“) and in the section “who is who in the lies“, so he appealed to the Federal Justice and a protection judge agreed with him, considering that a journalist should not be punished by the authorities for the opinions he expresses regarding issues of public interest, because freedom of expression must be constituted as an institution inextricably linked to political pluralism, so attacks from the “morning” result in statements that are neither objective nor impartial, since they contain value judgments that are not supported.
In the last matter, the Plenary Session of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation resolved an appeal regarding transparency, where the government was ordered to make known the information on the contracting of the spy software “Pegasus”, which gives the coincidence had served to spy on journalists; The regime refused to provide the information, with this decision transparency is given to a matter of relevance and public interest, it allows us to know if the actions of the authorities comply with the law and sets a precedent so that they do not continue spying on journalists or anyone else. person.
That is to say, to be able to practice journalism and the right to information in Mexico you have to go to court, under penalty of being stigmatized or considered “conservative” or “benefiting from the past”, it is not easier to let freedoms be exercised. .