In general, conditions remain favorable for the exercise of freedom of the press and freedom of expression. However, during the period under review, several incidents occurred involving the conduct of political actors toward media outlets and journalists, along with a broader debate over the limits of so-called “hate speech.” In addition, the economic difficulties affecting parts of the media sector are raising concerns about its long-term sustainability.
A year and a half into President Yamandú Orsi’s administration, marking the fourth term in government for the Frente Amplio, media outlets, journalists, and social media users have generally been able to carry out their activities without significant obstacles. No serious incidents have been reported that substantially affected freedom of expression or the right to information.
Nevertheless, several developments warrant attention because of their potential implications for independent journalism and public debate.
In June, a controversy arose between Leonardo Pereyra, a journalist with El Observador, and Frente Amplio Senator Bettiana Díaz. During an interview, Pereyra questioned Díaz about a personal post she had previously shared on social media. Díaz challenged the relevance of the question, arguing that the approach reflected gender bias and constituted an intrusion into her private life. The episode subsequently prompted public criticism of the journalist’s approach from sectors of the governing coalition and the Uruguayan Press Association (APU).
Beyond the initial controversy, the reactions to the journalist’s work raised questions about the environment in which journalists cover and scrutinize public figures. Although the episode did not involve formal censorship or restrictions on journalistic activity, public pressure or stigmatization directed at journalists over their reporting can have a chilling effect on the exercise of independent journalism.
A second controversy emerged in September, when Senator Blanca Rodríguez, a prominent figure in the governing coalition and a journalist for more than three decades before entering politics, called for the criminalization of what she described as “hate speech” disseminated “on social media, from podiums, and through microphones.” Her remarks included references to speech disseminated through the media. Rodríguez did not define the precise scope of the proposed measure and acknowledged that no specific bill had yet been drafted, although she indicated that discussions on the issue were under way.
Uruguay’s Criminal Code already includes the offense of incitement to hatred, contempt, or violence. Article 149 bis criminalizes public incitement to hatred, contempt, or physical or moral violence against individuals on the grounds of skin color, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, sexual orientation, or sexual identity. Any proposal to broaden the scope of these provisions should be assessed considering the guarantees of freedom of expression and freedom of the press recognized under the Inter-American human rights system.
Criticism of Rodríguez’s proposal was followed by objections from sectors of the governing coalition, which argued that some of the attacks against the senator constituted gender-based political violence. The Frente Amplio publicly rejected what it described as a campaign of disparagement against Rodríguez and defended the need to debate ideas without resorting to personal attacks. The episode once again underscored the tensions that can arise in public debate when criticism of political proposals becomes intertwined with disputes over the legitimacy, tone, or motives of those expressing that criticism.
These developments come amid economic difficulties affecting several media outlets, which have contributed to job losses in the sector and heightened concerns about the long-term sustainability of the news industry, particularly as media organizations also confront technological and economic disruption associated with artificial intelligence.
