Critical Expressions and Self-Censorship

This year marks twenty years since I stepped down as Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression at the Organization of American States, a position I had been honored to hold after being appointed by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Throughout this time, and from different roles, I have continued to observe the state of press freedom around the world, and I have noticed a recurring argument that I would like to comment on briefly today, as I find it once again at the forefront of public debate.

The argument is simple: it is claimed that freedom of expression is robust because it is possible to observe the dissemination of criticism —whether true or false— of those in power from different sectors, and its reproduction on social media or traditional media outlets. But this argument is flawed from the outset. This flaw lies in the belief that freedom to criticize the government is sufficient to confirm the existence of an environment where freedom of expression is guaranteed.

Freedom of criticism in matters of public interest is obviously essential to ensuring a suitable environment for the realization of the right that is the subject of this column. However, such expressions should not result in direct or indirect reprisals based on the law or on acts of dubious or no legal basis.

It is inappropriate, and perhaps unfair, to conclude that the existence of a suitable environment for the exercise of freedom of expression can be measured by the degree of journalistic courage or economic power required to speak out with criticism regardless of the cost. An appropriate environment for such exercise is one in which both the institutional architecture and the attitude of those in power play a fundamental role, enabling criticism and guaranteeing the absence of fear of arbitrary reprisals.

This is not just intuitive; there are empirical studies that confirm it: when fear of retaliation for critical speech becomes entrenched and prolonged, it leads to self-censorship. One problem that cannot be ignored is that gauging how much criticism has been suppressed due to fear of consequences requires prolonged observation, as self-censorship doesn’t usually emerge overnight. It is a slow process, where courage can be undermined and, in the end, criticism diminishes.

In short, it is very clear that identifying critical statements in the media or on social platforms is easy. But it is also clear that identifying self-censorship is generally a task that is not immediate, and far more difficult.

However, what can be quickly corroborated and observed is the implementation of public policies or attitudes that may trigger this process of self-censorship. We must be alert when we notice this happening because, even if it does not mean that self-censorship is “already” a fact at the moment such actions are noticed, such corroboration serves to confirm that the environment is not adequate for the exercise of freedom of expression, and that is reason enough to denounce them and demand that they cease. We cannot claim the existence of freedom of expression in a free and democratic society if we are satisfied with the existence of a few martyrs for what they believe and say.

This article is a translation of the original op-ed published in Spanish in La Nación (Argentina), July 8, 2025. English version published by Global Freedom of Expression, Columbia University at https://columbia.us8.list-manage.com/track/click?u=5b024e7a0c16e2779164ac24d&id=a5273c0f8d&e=ac817036b0