Argentina's press freedom decline accelerates amid political hostility and judicial crackdowns

Argentina’s ongoing struggle with press freedom has escalated significantly under President Javier Milei’s administration, which has taken an openly hostile stance towards journalists. Milei’s controversial slogan, “We don’t hate journalists enough,” has been widely publicised along with the hashtag #NLOSALP, reflecting a sustained campaign of verbal assaults against the media. These attacks include derogatory terms such as “human excrement,” “trash,” “baboons,” and “prostitutes to politicians,” amplifying concerns about shrinking democratic space in the country as the October elections approach.

This alarming climate has provoked both national and global outcry, particularly in light of a recent bribery scandal involving Karina Milei, Secretary General of the Presidency and President Milei’s sister. A federal judge had initially imposed a “15-day gag order” forbidding the media from publishing recordings allegedly linked to Karina Milei, a measure that drew swift criticism. Journalist Jorge Fontevecchia, backed by prominent constitutional scholar Roberto Gargarella, challenged the injunction as unconstitutional prior restraint. Following this, Karina Milei requested the court to lift the injunction, which it did, ending the temporary censorship.

Professor Gargarella, interviewed by Lautaro Furfaro from Columbia Global Freedom of Expression, characterises the gag order as symptomatic of an autocratic regime’s methods. He highlights a worrying trend across the Americas, including the United States, pointing to a new paradigm of democratic regression. Gargarella notes that executives often exploit their dominant position to control power checks, while courts either capitulate out of fear or complicity, a pattern evident in Argentina’s current judicial responses. He describes the government’s legal approach as marked more by improvisation and clumsiness than by strategic calculation, suggesting the lifting of the gag order was less a tactical retreat than an inadvertent acknowledgement of its flawed legality.

Argentina’s situation has also impacted its standing in international press freedom rankings. Reporters Without Borders recently downgraded the country by 47 places in its World Press Freedom Index, now ranking it 87th out of 180 nations. This shift reflects growing global concern over government hostility toward the press and the increasing constraints on freedom of information.

Such developments in Argentina contrast with recent rulings in international forums protecting freedom of expression. For instance, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled against Russia for disproportionate actions against Google LLC, safeguarding the internet’s role as a free expression forum. Similarly, Belgian courts have taken a firm stance against far-right groups promoting racial hatred online and condemned “shadowbanning” practices by social media platforms when politicians’ visibility was unlawfully restricted without transparency or redress.

These cases underscore ongoing global tensions between governmental power, political control over information, and digital platform responsibilities. Complementing this discourse, Columbia Global Freedom of Expression recently held seminars on international standards governing freedom of expression, examining doctrines like prior restraint and chilling effects—key concepts relevant to Argentina’s media challenges.

The broader context also includes discussions on artificial intelligence’s impact on free speech and the risks of big tech dependency, as highlighted by a recent Amazon Web Services outage exposing democratic vulnerabilities in cloud computing reliance. Additionally, issues of protest repression and human rights violations in Latin America, such as in Ecuador, remind that freedom of expression is interlinked with broader democratic and human rights struggles.

For associations and trade bodies engaged in safeguarding democratic principles and defending members’ rights, the Argentine case is a crucial example of how political rhetoric and judicial decisions can converge to restrict media freedom and expression. It also illustrates the importance of robust legal challenges and international human rights frameworks in countering democratic backsliding and promoting transparent, accountable governance.