Last month, Santiago A. Canton, a 36-year-old Argentine lawyer, issued his first report on Freedom of Expression as the first rapporteur of the Organization of American States. The InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights, the main agency of the OAS, decided in October 1997 to create the Freedom of Expression office as a permanent, independent organization. The commission's initiative won full support at the Second Summit of the Americas in Santiago, Chile, in April 1998. Canton assumed his post in November 1998. Before his appointment, he had been director of public information of the OAS and, from 1994 to 1998, was director for Latin America and the Caribbean of the National Institute for International Affairs in Washington.

Pulso del Periodismo: How have threats against freedom of the press in Latin America changed over the past 25 years?

Santiago Canton: From my viewpoint, the main difference is due basically to the different political scenarios where these threats develop.

Two decades ago, many hemispheric states had dictatorial governments, which by their nature are a negation of freedom of expression and inhibit its development. Today, with democratically elected governments throughout the continent with the exception of Cuba, there is a more fertile ground for the development and protection of freedom of expression.

P.: Some Latin American newspaper publishers insist that the No. 1 enemy of press freedom in Latin America is no longer the dictator but the politician. Do you agree?

S.C.: It's not possible to generalize and say that the politicians are the No. 1 enemy of freedom of expression. The No. 1 enemy is authoritarianism that, despite a return to democracy, continues to exist in some countries of the region.

P.: You've said that the major problems facing the press are institutional and non-institutional threats. What do you mean by this?

S.C.: The rapporteur's office is preoccupied by any type of problem that damages freedom of expression, from assassination and threats against journalists to those instances where other forms are used which also constitute serious attacks against freedom of expression, such as restrictive laws and sentences in the courts.

P.: During the past several years, there have been a series of lawsuits brought against journalists. Does this represent a new tactic to inhibit and control the news media?

S.C.: The lawsuits against journalists are a tool frequently used today by public functionaries to silence critics. The InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights has studied the so-called disrespect laws and concluded they are incompatible with the American Convention on Human Rights and that they restrict the debate that is fundamental in all democratic societies.

P.: Given the weakness of the legislatures and judiciary in many countries, do the news media have a more important watchdog role to play in Latin America's democracies than they do in the United States, Canada or Western Europe?

S.C.: I don't want to make a comparison between the watchdog role of the Latin American press and the press in the United States, Canada and Western Europe. In order to make a serious and thorough analysis of the subject, we have to take into consideration many historical elements and circumstances.

In many of today's Latin American democracies, public institutions which deal with the control of authority and the citizenry are weak. For example, the judicial system is often  inefficient when it comes to investigating cases and sanctioning those responsible. On the other hand, corruption and the drug trade have eroded many public institutions. It is under these circumstances that the press has become the main instrument of vigilance and control of the authorities and the citizenry, bringing to public debate those illegal or abusive acts that have evaded the legal mechanisms or have found in them allies and accomplices. It is in this context that the press has become the most effective instrument in the control and reining in of illegal and abusive acts committed by the authorities or private citizens in a democracy.

P.: Do the Latin American news media have the independence, professionalism and financial resources to fulfill their role of defender of public rights?

S.C.: It's not possible to generalize on this topic since the circumstances vary from country to country. There is a lot of professionalism and independence in some countries, while in others the control of the press by the State is almost absolute. Let's keep in mind that there exist in this hemisphere democracies strongly consolidated over the decades, like those in the United States and Costa Rica, while on the other extreme there's a country like Cuba where democracy does not exist and, therefore, there is no freedom of expression.

P.: There are still on the books in Brazil and Panama restrictive press laws brought in by dictatorial governments. All other Latin American countries have press laws. Journalism associations say the best press law is no law at all. Do you agree?

S.C.: It's not just in Brazil and Panama where laws that restrict the freedom of expression exist. Many other countries also have this type of law, imposed during dictatorial or authoritarian governments, and which are frequently used today. For example, in Chile laws which date from the era of General Pinochet are frequently used and invoked by the judicial sector. At present, 17 hemispheric countries have disrespect laws.

As for the best press law being no law, I don't want to generalize. I am a supporter of the least possible regulation that signifies impairment or restriction of freedom of expression. But in some cases a law is needed to regulate freedom of expression to make it conform to international instruments of human rights. This affirmation of mine could lead to wide analysis, but I want to give an example. According to the American Convention on Human Rights, everyone has the right to freedom of thought and expresion. This includes the freedom to seek, receive and distribute information and ideas of every type, vocally, in writing, in printed or artistic form, or by any other chosen method, without consideration for borders. But the same convention points out that any propaganda in favor of war or apology for national racial or religious hatred that constitute incitement to violence against persons or groups, will be prohibited by law. As well, the convention notes that public shows can be subject by law to prior censorship with the sole object in mind of regulating access to protect minors. Under these circumstances, it is necessary that in those countries there exist a special law to regulate freedom of expression in those areas noted, so that they're in agreement with the international instruments of human rights.

P.: It has been common in Latin America for governments and the private sector to bribe journalists in order to get favorable news coverage or to suppress unfavorable coverage? How serious a problem is this?

S.C.: Yes, this is a common practice in some hemispheric countries. As for the global magnitude of the problem, so far there has been no study, but every action that signifies bribery of a journalist to distort the news is serious when it seeks to disinform or confuse people so that they cannot perceive reality and form their own opinions.

P.: What kind of punitive measures can the OAS take against violators of freedom of the press?

S.C.: The InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights of the Organization of American States is entrusted with the promotion and protection of human rights in the hemisphere. It is precisely who can learn of the cases where the hemispheric states, by commission or omission, have violated freedom of expression.

Once the commission learns of a case, it issues a report in which it analyses the circumstances and rights and makes recommendations. Sixty days after sending the report to the State, the commission checks to see if the State has implemented the recommendations. Then it can take two decisions: it can make public the report or send the case to the InterAmerican Human Rights Court. The commission recently sent two freedom of expression cases to the court: one against the Peruvian state and the other against the Chilean state. Within this context, the office of the rapporteur can use all the mechanisms at the disposal of the commission, as well as new proceedings that the commission believes convenient to guarantee better protection of this right.

P.: Does the conglomeration of media under one ownership – for example, what is happening in Colombia – represent a danger for freedom of expression?

S.C.: Undoubtedly the monopoly of communications media affects freedom of expression. This is one of the topics the office of the rapporteur could consider in future reports.

P.: What do you foresee as the influence of the Internet on established news organizations?

S.C.: I believe that the Internet has a fundamental role in the world of communications. As far as news organizations are concerned, the Internet makes it possible for the flow of news they produce to reach a great number of people and, at the same time, allows the news media to inform more rapidly about what is happening in other parts of the world.

P.: Finally, what is the single greatest threat to press freedom in the hemisphere today?

S.C.: Among the major threats to freedom of expression in our hemisphere we can mention the assassination of journalists (in the last decades more than 150 journalists have been assassinated), the multiple threats which the media and their journalists face every day; the political will of some public functionaries to silence their critics through different forms of harassment; the existence of and the lack of overturning gag laws, contrary to the American Convention on Human Rights and other international instruments; the application of prior censorship and the existence of organizations that censure freedom of expression.