PEACE EDUCATION, NEEDED TO LIVE IN DEMOCRACY: IEEM
February 4, 2020
The new head of OSFEM … it was a show, says Cureño
February 4, 202010 million pesos the cost to give your opinion in Mexico
HIGHLIGHTS
10 million pesos the cost to give your opinion in Mexico
January 30th, 2019
Civic Proposal, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) and the Committee for the Protection of Journalists (CPJ), we condemn the actions of the Sixth Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Mexico City, chaired by Judge Francisco José Huber Olea Contró, judicial authority, in the case against the journalist Sergio Aguayo Quezada. On October 10, 2019, he issued a conviction against Aguayo. The sentence was founded and motivated by misleading arguments and misinterpretations and violations of human rights and the standards that have been developed regarding freedom of expression. Thus, the Law and the criteria established by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation and the Inter-American Human Rights System are broken.
Judge Olea Contró interpreted and applied the Malice Standard effectively and improperly. This standard has to be applied to journalistic genres of information that by their very nature imply a content of “facts”. And in the specific case, it is a “column of opinion”, as established by the SCJN, the standard of Effective Malice can only be applied in the dissemination of facts and not of opinions, ideas and value judgment *. Contrary to legality, the magistrate applied an invalid argument to support his sentence. The magistrate improperly applied this standard, making it one of his strongest arguments to support his sentence.
Staff
Translator: Martín Caballero
Civic Proposal, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) and the Committee for the Protection of Journalists (CPJ), we condemn the actions of the Sixth Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Mexico City, chaired by Judge Francisco José Huber Olea Contró, judicial authority, in the case against the journalist Sergio Aguayo Quezada. On October 10, 2019, he issued a conviction against Aguayo. The sentence was founded and motivated by misleading arguments and misinterpretations and violations of human rights and the standards that have been developed regarding freedom of expression. Thus, the Law and the criteria established by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation and the Inter-American Human Rights System are broken.
Judge Olea Contró interpreted and applied the Malice Standard effectively and improperly. This standard has to be applied to journalistic genres of information that by their very nature imply a content of “facts”. And in the specific case, it is a “column of opinion”, as established by the SCJN, the standard of Effective Malice can only be applied in the dissemination of facts and not of opinions, ideas and value judgment *. Contrary to legality, the magistrate applied an invalid argument to support his sentence. The magistrate improperly applied this standard, making it one of his strongest arguments to support his sentence.
Staff
Translator: Martín Caballero
