Knight Center
Knight Center

JOURNALISM IN THE AMERICAS Blog

Ecuador’s controversial Communications Law in 8 points



Congressman Mauro Andino, author of the Communications Law, speaking before Ecuador's National Assembly on June 14, when the law was approved. In the background, opposition congressmen protest the law. Photo: Estuardo Vera (Courtesy El Universo).

It took less than 30 minutes for the National Assembly to approve one of the most controversial and restrictive laws for the press in Ecuador.

With 108 out of 137 congressmen representing the ruling party, the new Organic Law on Communications was approved on Friday, June 14 by an overwhelming majority and without debating any of its provisions -- not even the ones that were added in the last moment.

The law, a project that was left pending during the last legislative session, represents a triumph for President Rafael Correa, who has trumpeted the law as an initiative that will democratize media, strengthen freedom of expression and promote "a good press” in the country. The congressmen that supported it have called it "historic" and "just and necessary."

But several private media outlets in Ecuador and freedom of expression advocates have sharply criticize it, believe its effects will be exactly the opposite to the ones it touts, and are already calling it a "gag law.” The Inter-American Press Association said the law represents a "grave setback for freedom of the press and expression," the Colombian Association of Newspapers and Informative Media (Andiarios) called the document "the final stab” against freedom of expression in the country, and, on Wednesday, Frank La Rue, the United Nations' Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression, described some of the law's provisions as "unacceptable."

"I also reiterate my concern over the fact that the law was not submitted to a broader debate with society's other actors, including journalists and media outlets," said La Rue in a press release. “I respectfully recommend the President of the Republic, Mr. Rafael Correa, not to sanction this law and instead send it back to the Republic's Congress so it can be discussed more broadly before its approval."

Click here to download the full text of the law from the National Assembly's website.

The law was created during the last legislative session, but even though it was brought to the floor for debate, it was not submitted for voting and remained as a pending project. Back then the ruling party had 61 representatives in the National Assembly and did not have the votes necessary to approve the law without opposition. This year, the ruling party's majority was able to block requests for new debates and passed the law without any setbacks.

"This is the final step in the deterioration of freedom of expression in Ecuador during Correa's administration," Carlos Lauría, senior program coordinator in the Americas for the Committee to Protect Journalists, told the Knight Center for Journalism in the Americas. The law "will undermine journalists' ability to criticize and investigate, but it will also limit the citizens of Ecuador's ability to receive public interest information. The law makes it clear that one of Correa's objectives is to silence the government's critics."

Here's a more detailed description of some of the law's provisions along with comments from Lauría and César Ricaurte, director of Ecuadorian NGO Fundamedios.

The National Assembly approved Ecuador's controversial Communications Law on Friday, June 14. Photo: National Assembly.
  1. Ethics: Even though the law calls media outlets to create their own codes of ethics, the law asks them to "consider [...] minimal rules" like "respecting people's honor and reputation" and "being careful that headlines are coherent and consistent with news content." The law establishes that citizens can file a complaint when media outlets breach the codes of ethics.

    Lauría said this provision goes against international standards like those established within the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights' declaration on the principles of freedom of expression, which states that "journalistic activities must be guided by ethical conduct, which should in no case be imposed by the State."

  2. Media lynching: Article 26 of the Communications Law prohibits what it described as "media lynching," or the "dissemination of infomation in a coordinated and reiterative
    manner [...] with the purpose of discrediting or harming the reputation of a natural or legal person."

    Ricaurte said this article was one of the new provisions that was added into the final version of the law without congressional debate. There is no legal precendent for this concept in any other country's legislation or international treaty, he added, saying he believed this article will become a notable obstacle for future journalistic investigations.

    “If you accuse or investigate a public official of corruption, he or she could just as well accuse the media outlet of media lynching," Ricaurte said.

  3. Media workers' rights: The law protects the right to freedom of expression and opinion, and it prohibits prior censorship. It also establishes journalists' right to protect their sources and information revealed to them confidentially.

    However, the law states, a journalist's right to protect his sources "does not exempt him from ulterior responsibility."

    Lauría criticized these provisions, saying they were at odds with other items within the law that placed limits on journalistic practice.

    “It seems to me that the declarations that the law makes regarding respecting freedom of expression and prohibiting prior censorship make no sense," he said. "How can these provisions that sound so progressive make any sense when print and audiovisual media outlets won't be able to report freely and will be subjected to the strict control of an organism capable of persecuting them?”

  4. Ulterior responsibility: The law states that all persons have the obligation "to assume the administrative consequences of disseminating content that harms the rights established by the Constitution" and that "media outlets will be subject to ulterior responsibility in the administrative, civil and penal spheres."

    The document also makes media outlets responsible for the comments made by anonymous users on their websites. It also requires them to publish or broadcast replies to their stories when these affect a person's "dignity, honor or reputation" within 72 hours after a complaint is received. And any correction must appear "with the same characteristics, dimensions and in the same space, section and schedule" the original story received.

  5. Oversight mechanisms: The law orders the creation of three new agencies: 1. The Council for Regulation and Information & Communication Development; 2. A a non-binding advisory council -- composed by representatives from private media outlets, citizens' organizations, communication academics and students -- which will offer guidance for the first agency; and 3. The Superintendent's Office for Information & Communication, a "technical agency for oversight, auditing, intervention and control" with the ability to produce sanctions, investigate complaints and enforce the Communications Law.

    Ricuarte criticized the law for not clearly establishing how these agencies will carry out their responsibilities since it charges these very institutions with creating their own mechanisms and does not specify what type of sanctions they will be able to produce.

    It's an "absolutely bureaucratic, obscure and ambiguous [system] that leaves plenty of room for arbitrary acts," Ricaurte said. 

  6. Information as a “public good”: Article 71 describes information as a "public good" and social communication as a "public service," definitions that worried Ricaurte.

    Information “goes from being a fundamental right to a public service; therefore, it becomes susceptible to any kind of regulation from the State," he said.

  7. Public defenders: In two paragraphs the law states that national media outlets "will have by obligation" a public defender that will be chosen in public contests. The law does not specify what the public defender's duties will be, reason why Ricaurte did not discard the possibility that the provision might be used to intervene directly in the activities of the country's newsrooms.

  8. Equal distribution of frequencies: The law establishes that 33 percent of all frequencies in the radioelectric spectrum will be allocated to public media outlets, 33 percent to private media outlets and 34 percent to community media outlets. According to the document, the new balance will be reached by assigning the rest of the available frequencies accordingly, but also by redistributing the frequencies that may have been "obtained illegally" or aren't following the law.

    “In any case, the distribution of frequencies will prioritize the community sector until the equal distribution established in this article is obtained," the law states.

    For Ricaurte, the law limits the growth of any individual sector and multiplies the state's media presence.

    "State media outlets will now have the same amount of frequencies that private and community outlets do," Ricaurte said. "In the Ecuadorian context, that's essentially the creation, if not of a monopoly, of a forceful state hegemony."



4 comments

 
Guest wrote 35 weeks 2 days ago

Beware of Trolls

Knight Center, please be aware that the Ecuadorian Government has a troll center, they actually pay people to write comments in articles like this one. For instance, this guy “Martin”, who says he’s Irish, which I doubt because of his very basic English, and the first commenter José, are probably trolls. It’s sad but it’s a reality we have to deal with.

 
Jose wrote 41 weeks 6 days ago

Balance

What's clearly missing from this report is the perspective of a proponent of the law. Also, the law was in fact debated for years. The second paragraph gives a mistaken impression. Yes, I think there were a couple of last-minute changes, but that's a different matter.

 
Ben F Rayfield wrote 42 weeks 3 days ago

The real purpose is to get people to say media lynch

Its not called "media lynching", because that makes it sound like justice is delivered without a trial. The "media accusing" is to make sure they are formally accused and the courts don't let them off easy for being an authority, else we may media accuse the judge too. If we call it any kind of lynching, people will accept the law. Politicians normally try out the worst crimes against the people in other countries before bringing it to your own. We need to stop this before it spreads. Are they saying we can't reduce the credibility of killers and rapists by saying thats what they are? Lets "media accuse" those who created that so-called law. There are 2 issues with Wikileaks that government would like us to believe are the same. (1) Wikileaks broadcast many private documents for no good reason, things that were not evidence of crimes. We don't need to do that. Leave this part to the continuing politics between the Pirate Party and the Content Industry. (2) Wikileaks broadcast evidence of crimes and media accused the criminals. This is necessary for everyone's freedom because if we let criminals run our lives then they will force us to be criminals. They might even pass laws that say you can't tell anyone they are criminals. But more important than any of that, the real purpose of this government action is to get people to say "media lynching". Parrot up!

 
Martin wrote 42 weeks 4 days ago

Ecuadorian Communication Law

This is hardly an objective piece of writing. Fundamedios? Seriously? What a joke! I could tell you more than a thing or two about that organisation. Honestly would any of these 8 very specific points seem unresonable were it not for the negative twisted comments that accompany them? I am Irish and and have been a longtime observer of Ecuadorian politics. I live part of the year in Ecuador. The press in Ecuador have for decades enjoyed impunity and a complete lack of standards. Now that finally someone has taken the initiative to do something about their manipulative hold on society and try to implement standards and ethics in journnalism in the country they are being criticised for it??? Where is the logic and in this? How can anyone possibly see the request for ethics and coherence in journalism as a negative thing? In the U.S. are there not consequences for example when a journalist damages the character or good name of a group or individual? Ye sthere are. Severe ones. There is much more to this new law too than what you have mentioned here.

Add your comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.


Newsletter

Subscribe to our twice weekly newsletter about journalism in the Americas.

Choose your language:


English
Español
Português


Please enter your e-mail address:


Facebook

Recent comments