Audience Rights: The Challenge of Regulating Without Limiting Freedom of Expression

-Editorial

Guidelines should not lead to a confrontation between audience rights and freedom of expression, but rather to the development of technically sound regulations, says a CETYS expert.

Mexicali, B.C.- Receiving diverse information, distinguishing between opinion and news content, and knowing how to file a complaint against a media outlet are among the fundamental rights of audiences. In this context, the Telecommunications Regulatory Commission (CRT) has opened a public consultation on the proposed General Guidelines for the Protection of Audience Rights, an initiative aimed at establishing mechanisms to make these rights effective. The proposal has also raised questions regarding its implementation and its potential impact on freedom of expression.

Mtra. Nathalie Canizales Reyes, Coordinator of the Master’s Degree in Law at CETYS University, Mexicali Campus, explained that the National Human Rights Commission has emphasized that people have not only the right to express their ideas, but also the right to receive content that reflects political, social, and cultural diversity. This contributes to an informed citizenry, which is a cornerstone of a democratic society.

An Opportunity to Strengthen Audience Rights

The CETYS expert noted that the Guidelines represent an important opportunity to strengthen audience rights and promote greater transparency between media organizations and society.

“However, in these cases, it is essential to have a strong legal and technical foundation. In other words, when pursuing a completely legitimate objective, such as protecting audience rights, it is necessary to achieve that objective through mechanisms that operate within the constitutional and legal framework. Imprecise regulation creates uncertainty for those involved, which could ultimately weaken the very right it seeks to protect.”

The effectiveness of the Guidelines depends not only on their content, but also on the strength of the institutions responsible for enforcing them. In other words, audience rights require clear rules, authorities acting within the scope of their legal powers, and mechanisms that generate trust among both audiences and broadcasters.

Balancing Regulation and Editorial Freedom

Mtra. Canizales Reyes also noted that some of the issues generating the greatest debate involve the obligation for broadcasters to include on-screen banners, transitions, or messages distinguishing news content, opinions, and advertising, as well as the use of ambiguous legal concepts such as “false information” and “truthfulness” within the Guidelines.

“The fact that these concepts lack sufficiently clear parameters, combined with the imposition of significant and potentially substantial sanctions for noncompliance, could lead to differing interpretations, legal uncertainty, and even a chilling effect on the exercise of editorial freedom,” the CETYS expert stated.

In this regard, while it is essential for self-regulatory mechanisms to strengthen transparency and editorial responsibility, they should not discourage the exercise of freedom of expression, much less encourage censorship or self-censorship. Therefore, the fundamental challenge is to protect audiences while also designing provisions that provide legal certainty to both those responsible for enforcing them and those subject to them.

For this reason, the Guidelines should not frame audience rights and freedom of expression as opposing interests. Rather, they should contribute to building technically sound regulations supported by institutions capable of enforcing them impartially and within the legal framework, the academic explained.

“The challenge is not to diminish one right in order to protect another, but to design clear, transparent, and proportionate mechanisms that guarantee and strengthen both audience rights and freedom of expression, recognizing that in a democratic society, both rights are necessary and complementary,” Mtra. Canizales Reyes concluded.