The Organic Bill on Freedom of Expression and Audiovisual Media, submitted by the Executive Branch to the National Congress, possesses a great virtue: it attempts to overcome the outdated nature of Law 6132 on Expression and Dissemination of Thought from 1962, and Regulation 824 of 1971 on public shows and broadcasting.

The bill is based, in its preamble, on all national and international legislation regarding freedom of expression. Following the classical-democratic-liberal model, it defines this freedom as the right of every person to express themselves in any form and through any medium.

This right is not subject to prior censorship, but rather to subsequent responsibilities that must be defined by law itself. It also includes the right to seek, receive, and disseminate information and ideas of all kinds.

The purpose and scope of the legislative proposal are to regulate freedom of expression. It does not limit itself to print media; instead, it aims to extend its reach to audiovisual media, digital platforms, and algorithmic communication.

The bill establishes mechanisms to protect the exercise of the conscience clause by journalists; to promote the rights of children and adolescents; and to ensure accessibility and inclusion for people with disabilities.

It dedicates several articles to the right of correction or reply and elaborates on exemptions from liability for defamation and slander, as well as for violations of privacy and image rights.

Structural Deficiency

Although the bill refers to audiovisual media—a component absent in Law 6132—it does not treat this mode of communication as a priority.

Internet content platforms, which emerged after audiovisual media, are addressed before radio and television. For instance, Article 5, immediately following the bill’s introduction, discusses access to the internet and information and communication technologies.

Later, Chapter IV is fully dedicated to internet platforms and content, whereas audiovisual communication is not addressed until Chapter V.

This creates an inconsistency. The major gap in Law 6132 was that it was designed for print media, as it was practically a literal copy of the French press law from the late 19th century.

Naturally, at that time, audiovisual media did not exist—they emerged in the first half of the 20th century. However, when the law was adopted into national legislation, it left us without regulations for radio and television.

What’s more, this mode of communication, which constitutes the essence of the current bill, is only addressed in eight articles. That is clearly insufficient. The bill does not establish any connection with international agreements or treaties on telecommunications.

It is also notable that there is no mention of the legal status of audiovisual enterprises—whether public or private. Nor is there any discussion of the various television broadcasting models: terrestrial broadcast, cable, or satellite.

There are several questions the bill should try to address. For example: On what basis are radio frequency spectrum bands allocated? What are the rights and obligations of audiovisual workers? Why are exemptions from liability for defamation and slander included for private individuals?

The Battle to Regulate

With technological development starting in the 1990s, new forms of communication began to emerge. First came the internet, opening up vast possibilities for universal access to information, entertainment, and education.

Later came digital platforms, social media, and algorithmic communication, reflected in technologies like machine learning and artificial intelligence.

The bill submitted to the Senate demonstrates a clear interest in regulating these newer forms of communication. Although the intent is commendable, the technology is constantly evolving and, given its transnational nature, is difficult for states to regulate effectively.

The spread of disinformation, hate speech, the promotion of violence, and the concentration of power among major digital platforms have driven states to adopt a more active role in enforcing national regulations.

However, very few countries have made significant progress in developing such regulations. In the European Union, it was only last year, in 2024, that a Digital Services Act was passed; and in 2018, an Audiovisual Media Services Directive came into force, requiring platforms to combat harmful content.

Spain enacted a General Audiovisual Communication Law in 2022, which includes measures for users to report harmful content. In Latin America, Brazil has made strides in this direction, particularly following a court order by Judge Alexandre de Moraes to suspend the social network X (formerly Twitter) in the country, after the company failed to comply with several judicial rulings.

Several academic institutions in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Germany are working to develop regulatory frameworks to address disinformation, fake news, and algorithmic moderation.

However, as can be seen, this is an evolving trend and still far from becoming established. The newly submitted Organic Bill on Freedom of Expression and Audiovisual Media aspires to be part of this legislative vanguard. Yet, it would be inconsistent with its goals to revive the old Public Shows Commission—now under the authority of the newly created National Audiovisual Communication Institute (INACOM).

The role of this new entity in relation to cinema and theater, and its sanctioning powers, has stirred a cloud of suspicion.

It is therefore legitimate to propose a serious reflection on this new bill before it can be approved.