In one of the deepest conversations at the 82nd General Assembly of the SIP, three experts in constitutional law and human rights warned about the rise of increasingly sophisticated forms of censorship and judicial harassment against journalists.
From left to right: Nancy Hernández, Natalia Ángel Cabo, Ana Bejarano, and Catalina Botero.
The defense of freedom of expression does not depend solely on courageous journalists or independent media outlets. It also requires judges capable of resisting political pressure, applying international standards, and protecting fundamental rights—even when doing so is unpopular. That was one of the main conclusions of the panel “Between the Press and Power: Justice as the Guarantor of Freedoms,” held during the 82nd General Assembly of the Inter-American Press Association (IAPA) in Bogotá.
The discussion brought together Justice Natalia Ángel Cabo, vice president of the Constitutional Court of Colombia; Judge Nancy Hernández, president of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights; and Catalina Botero, a legal scholar and former Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression for the IACHR. Ana Bejarano, an attorney and co-director of the freedom of expression advocacy organization El Veinte, moderated the panel.
This discussion took place against a backdrop of increasing verbal attacks on journalists, the use of legal proceedings to intimidate independent media, and growing skepticism toward the justice systems.
The IACHR and the Protection of the Press
The president of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Nancy Hernández, noted that, over the course of decades, the inter-American system has built a body of case law that today constitutes one of the main legal defenses for journalism in the Americas. Among these standards, she mentioned access to public information, enhanced protection for speech in the public interest, the prohibition on prior censorship, professional secrecy, and the protection of sources, as well as the inadmissibility of resorting to criminal law to punish expressions related to public affairs.
She also highlighted the doctrine developed by the Court regarding protection against stigmatizing speech by public authorities, the investigation of attacks against journalists, and the fight against impunity. “The Court’s case law has had a far-reaching impact throughout the region and has been incorporated into the constitutional law of our democracies,” she stated.
Judges Under Pressure
Justice Natalia Ángel pointed out that attacks against the press and the judiciary are part of the same phenomenon. “It is not only the press that is under attack; we judges are also under attack, and our decisions are being called into question,” she warned.
defended the role of the tutela action in Colombia as a mechanism for protecting fundamental rights, but warned against its potential use to silence critical voices when it deviates from constitutional standards of freedom of expression.
He insisted that judges must recognize the primacy of freedom of expression in a democratic society, properly distinguish between information and opinion, and apply proportionate remedies that limit the circulation of content of public interest as little as possible. “Making progress on rights is extremely difficult, but losing them can be very easy,” he warned, referring to the risks of democratic backsliding he observes in various countries in the region.
Judicial Harassment as Censorship
Catalina Botero argued that a significant portion of current threats to freedom of expression no longer take the form of direct censorship, but rather the strategic use of legal proceedings. As she explained, governments, public officials, or powerful actors use civil lawsuits, defamation and slander charges, criminal investigations, and legal concepts outside the realm of public debate to intimidate journalists and media outlets.
o cited recent examples from various countries in the region where investigative journalism in the public interest led to charges of extortion, money laundering, or other crimes that, in his view, are not intended to shed light on illegal acts but rather to punish the practice of journalism. “There’s nothing cheaper than suing a journalist. Defending oneself is extremely expensive and incredibly difficult,” he said.
Given this scenario, he defended the need to promote legislation known as anti-SLAPP laws, designed to prevent abusive lawsuits from being used to silence journalistic investigations by financially and emotionally exhausting journalists and media outlets.
What best protects freedom of expression?
One of the questions that ran throughout the conversation was what is more important for preserving press freedom: having good laws or good judges. “I prefer good judges, even if we have bad laws,” Botero replied.
For the legal scholar, an independent, well-trained judge with integrity can apply international standards to protect journalism even in adverse legal contexts. Conversely, she warned, even the best laws lose their effectiveness when those tasked with interpreting them lack autonomy from political power.
The former special rapporteur maintained that judges today play a decisive role in defending democracy and freedom of expression, especially in the face of governments seeking to expand their powers.
Defending Democratic Institutions
Although the debate focused on the legal protection of the press, the panelists agreed that freedom of expression, judicial independence, and democracy are all part of the same ecosystem. The erosion of any one of these elements ultimately weakens the others, which is why the media, the courts, and the institutions responsible for guaranteeing fundamental rights must all be strengthened simultaneously.
The panel concluded that defending press freedom depends not only on protecting those who report the news, but also on preserving the independence of those called upon to uphold the law when those in power attempt to silence them.
Key Messages
The case law of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights remains one of the main safeguards for the protection of journalism in the Americas.
Judicial harassment has become one of the most sophisticated and effective forms of censorship against journalists.
Judicial independence faces pressures similar to those faced by the media.
Anti-SLAPP laws are emerging as an increasingly important tool for protecting journalistic investigations in the public interest.
Without independent, well-trained judges of strong character, legal safeguards for freedom of expression may be rendered meaningless.
