As we say in Argentina, the government “stepped on the stick.” When asking – and get in a preliminary way – that justice prohibits journalists from spreading any clandestine recording that is from Karina Milei, only managed to strengthen the suspicions surrounding the hermanic presidential. If not, why so much eagerness for those audios not to spread? And from the legal and journalistic perspective, what is the difference between this initiative of the Casa Rosada and an act of prior censorship?
The enclosure in which the Government began to take shape months ago, when someone recorded the then head of the National Disability Agency (Andis), Diego Spagnuolo, while vomiting Broncas and suspicions against his superiors inside the Casa Rosada to which he endorsed alleged acts of corruption. Among them, the Secretary General of the Presidency, Karina Milei, and her right hand, Eduardo Lule Menem.
Those audios began to spread on August 19, without Spagaguolo denied them. Nor was it clear that it was not his voice of those audios, or that the content was false or adulterated. He shut up, before the stupor, fear and the growing suspicions of the Casa Rosada, which began to see ghosts everywhere. Because there are officials who see a Zancadilla of the Kirchnerists, yes, but there are more those who point to the intestine wars that eaten the libertarians.
If the panorama was already overwhelming for the government, the paranoia reached stratospheric levels when last week the second phase of the leaks began. Which? The one with Karina Milei. Two harmless audios circulated – in which she highlights how many hours she works per day, for example – but the important thing was the audios themselves: we all knew that someone had recorded it and, above, inside the Casa Rosada.
At this point, there is a clarification. In general terms, recordings can be clandestine or illegal. What differentiates them? If the voices of Spagnuolo and Karina Milei were recorded by someone who, for example, had lunch with him or had coffee with her, those recordings are reproachable from the ethical perspective – because he recorded them without prior authorization – although they are not illegal. It is different if a third recorded those conversations, whether “puncturing” telephones or “planting” microphones without prior court order. In that case they are illegal.
Drawing the clarification, the government reacted in the worst way. He asked Justice to dictate a precautionary measure to prevent the journalistic dissemination of any other Karina Milei audio, without knowing its eventual content. And a federal civil and commercial jurisdiction, Patricio Maraniello, admitted the request in a preliminary way, after clarifying that his decision should not be interpreted as an act of “prior censorship.”
But that was precisely as many interpreted. Among them, the constitutional law professor Pedro Caminos. “The measure would have the purpose of protecting the intimacy and honor of Karina Milei. But the judge did not have the audios available to evaluate such a thing. So censure ‘just in case,” he said. “The previous measures are, as a rule, inadmissible and, in terms of freedom of expression, the principle of subsequent responsibilities governs,” he recalled. “That means that no authority, nor the judicial, has powers to prevent the dissemination of information. If that dissemination caused damage (as an arbitrary interference in intimacy), the responsibility is born. Always after, never before.”
Maraniello’s decision – a judge who seeks to ascend to the cameraman as he accumulates complaints for alleged sexual harassment, labor abuse and abuse of power in the Council of the Magistracy – brings ungrateful memories among the memorious Argentines. In 1992, federal judge María Servini made a chamber of Appeals to prohibit all mention to her in the television program of the humorist Tato Bores. Conclusion? It was worse. Because? Because Tato reaped very social support against the judge who, not to appoint her, on the subsequent Sunday and his special guests alluded as they alluded as BUDO BUDO BUDO.
Thus, the government got only into a eggplant. If you do not know the audios of Karina Milei, why do you try to prevent them from spreading? If you do know the audios and are harmless, why avoid being disseminated? And if you know the audios and are incriminatory – for it, for Lule Menem, for President Javier Milei or for whom it would be – can prevent them from spreading?
The short answer is or should be: no. Among the interest of a person – at the time, public official – and the public interest, the latter must prevail. This is established by the National Constitution, this has been highlighted by the Supreme Court of Argentine Justice and there are the Pentagon Papers as a banner and premise for any journalist. It happened in the United States, when The New York Times He agreed to secret documents of the Pentagon on the Vietnam War, the White House sought to prevent its publication and the Supreme Court reaffirmed in 1971 the prevalence of the press to disseminate information of public interest without any government being able to prevent it.
In other words, if an Argentine journalist had today or access audios tomorrow in which Karina Milei was heard to address issues of public interest – it was already the alleged transfer of bribes, the electoral campaign or the presidential health, among many other options – should it self -control or publish it, knowing that it will face a judicial process that will end in the Court or, even, even in the Inter -American Court of Human Rights?
For now, the Minister of Security, Patricia Bullrich, already set her position and, strictly speaking, that of the Government. As? Asked justice to allane to the channel of streaming and the homes of their owners and journalists to kidnap their electronic devices and related documentation.
The Minister of Security, it is clear, of a government that is said “libertarian.”
For more updates, visit our homepage: NewsTimesWire
