In 2017 Mexico’s Supreme Court of Justice ordered Congress to regulate government advertising. The General Law of Communication, which was passed on May 11, 2018, did not comply with international standards on freedom of expression, access to information, and government advertising. While in 2021 the Supreme Court declared the law unconstitutional and ordered Congress to fix these issues, the latest changes to the Law are still contrary to international standards.
According to data from the Observatorio Latinoamericano de Regulación de Medios de Comunicación (Latin American Observatory of Media Regulation) released in 2018, 12 family-held groups hold the highest audience shares. These are Grupo Televisa, Grupo Salinas (TV Azteca), Grupo América Móvil (Carlos Slim), Grupo Empresarial Ángeles (Excélsior, Imagen TV), Grupo El Universal, Grupo Reforma, Grupo Multimedios (Milenio), Grupo OEM (Los Soles), Grupo Radio Fórmula, Grupo Radio Centro, and Grupo MVS. This imposes severe difficulties on freedom of expression, as it limits the plurality of information and opinions available to the public. Furthermore, the lack of appropriate regulation of government advertising means that the State’s budgetary allocations are concentrated in the dominant media outlets, which results in media control through government advertising.
On November 15, 2017, Mexico’s Supreme Court of Justice (SCJN) issued its ruling on the Amparo en revisión 1359/2015 case, filed by Article 19, ordering the Congress to create a law in order to regulate the eighth paragraph of Article 134 of the Constitution related to government advertising.
As a result, on May 11, 2018, during President Peña Nieto’s administration, the General Law of Communication was passed, which aimed to regulate government advertising. However, several Congress members filed unconstitutionality action 52/2018 and its accumulated actions 53/2018 and 55/2018 before the Supreme Court, arguing that the Law violated freedom of expression.
In February 2019, Article 19 challenged the General Law of Social Communication through an amparo, arguing that its content was contrary to the Constitution and international standards on freedom of expression.
On February 20, 2020, Article 19 and the FUNDAR Centro de Análisis e Investigación (FUNDAR Center for Analysis and Research) filed an amicus brief stating that the aforementioned law had a flawed legislative process and that its content does not comply with international standards on the distribution of state advertising, hiring mechanisms, transparency and access to information, external controls for advertising allocation, and pluralism of information. This amicus brief also stated that the Law does not comply with the principles outlined by the Constitution and the November 15 Supreme Court decision.
Thanks to Article 19, FUNDAR and other organizations, on March 3, 2021, the Supreme Court withdrew the draft resolution that had been presented by Minister González Alcántara, in which he declared that the Ley General de Comunicación Social (LGCS) (General Law of Social Communication) was constitutional, thus disregarding the aforementioned considerations. On September 8, 2021, the Court issued its ruling on the Amparo en revisión 308/2020 case, declaring the LGCS unconstitutional and recognizing that it “violates freedom of expression and the right to information by not providing clear and precise allocation criteria for spending on social communication, nor does it provide mechanisms to guarantee that such expense complies with the constitutionally established criteria for the matter, that is, efficiency, effectiveness, economy, transparency and honesty.”
Finally, the SCJN required the Congress to issue new legislation. However, the Congress claimed to be unable to carry out a legislative process in such a short time. Consequently, the Congress requested an extension to carry out the legislative process. On February 8, 2022, the Judiciary granted an extension for 60 calendar days.
The ordinary period of sessions ended and there was no material compliance with the judgment because Congress did not issue the new legislation, which translates to contempt of court. The Congress requested a new extension for the next ordinary period of sessions (from September to December 2022). The Judiciary granted an extension of 30 working days.
In December 2022, Congress passed a series of reforms to the General Law of Social Communication. Article 19 pointed out that the changes made do not fix the unconstitutional issues declared by the Supreme Court, and that the bill does not meet the standards of freedom of expression, access to information, and official publicity. Furthermore, it does not adequately regulate government advertising.
On February 01, 2023, Mexico’s National Electoral Institute (INE) filed an acción de inconstitucionalidad (constitutional challenge) before the Supreme Court, arguing that the reforms undermine the Institute’s autonomy and its ability to fulfill its purpose, while they unbalance the model of social communication and harm electoral equity. On April 26, 2023, the Law was modified yet again, eliminating the limitations for government advertising within the states. President López Obrador has stated that he will consider whether or not to veto the law.
Freedom of expression in Mexico is at serious risk. Since 2000, 159 journalists and media workers have been murdered. 2020 reported a 45% increase in the number of attacks against journalists, and a total of 7 journalists killed. In 2021, Article 19 recorded an aggression against the press every 14 hours; with 644 attacks documented throughout the year, and seven journalists murdered.
Human Rights Watch has pointed out that “Mexico is one of the most dangerous countries in the world for journalists, on par with war zones like Syria and Afghanistan in terms of number of journalists killed, the Committee to Protect Journalists and Reporters Without Borders say.” The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has documented impunity levels in Mexico.
Also of concern is the stigmatizing and delegitimizing discourse from the highest authorities of the State, questioning, for example, the origin of their funding and accusing them of belonging to the “conservative movement.” Lately, these accusations have been made against organizations such as Article 19, and others critical of President López Obrador’s administration, such as La 72, Home-Shelter for migrant people, and the Centro Mexicano de Derecho Ambiental (CEMDA).
- Animal Político, El Congreso de la Unión no cumplió (otra vez) (07 May 2022)
- Animal Político, De leyes y voluntades… o la ausencia de ambas (12 February 2022)
- Animal Político, Y nos quedamos, nuevamente, sin ley (18 December 2021)
- Article 19, ARTICLE 19 y FUNDAR solicitan al Pleno de la SCJN declare la inconstitucionalidad de la Ley General de Comunicación Social (21 February 2020)