Rafael de Mendizábal: "The ministerial order on disinformation must be appealed and annulled by the Constitutional Court"

• Reactions: Press editors and journalists' associations express concern

• Disinformation: A Moncloa committee will monitor the media

The

is an independent body that has been in charge for 14 years of promoting the ethical development of the profession from self-regulation and through mediation.

Its president, Magistrate

, joins the voices critical of the step taken by the Government to control disinformation, due to the decline in democracy that, according to the alert, means restricting the freedom of the media.

«When something is situated

outside the law, there are the Constitution, the Penal Code and the courts.

For this, no ministerial order is necessary, "he says.

The initiative promoted by the Government has been received with concern by different sectors of the profession.

In your opinion, and in view of the text, are there reasons to worry?

Yes. Those of us who are supporters of freedom of expression in its utmost integrity are deeply concerned about this, because it is one more step on the road to censorship and the construction of a single thought.

That is the trend and it is fully visible until we enjoy a newspaper called 'The Truth', translated into Russian 'Pravda'.

The Information Media Association (AMI) has warned that it may even violate the spirit of the Constitution.

Do you agree with this statement?

I was a magistrate of the Constitutional Court for nine years and, with the law in hand, this ministerial order directly violates the Constitution.

It is yet another manifestation of the enthusiasm felt by many who brag about censorship Democrats.

Some political forces lack democratic faith.

To behave democratically, we must respect freedom.

This situation has reopened the eternal debate in the journalistic profession between regulation and self-regulation.

What do you think about that?

The tendency to create Councils leads directly to being controlled by power, as has already happened in Catalonia without the slightest doubt.

On the other hand, the trend of self-regulation is the one that led to the creation in 2006 of the Arbitration Commission that I preside, which is authentically independent, born from society and without any official character or link with public institutions.

And during the Transition, how was this dichotomy between regulation and self-regulation addressed and resolved?

With article 20 of the Constitution that establishes two rights: to free expression, on the one hand, and to give and receive truthful information, on the other.

There are no limits other than those listed there.

The Government's initiative is proposed as a tool to combat something harmful such as misinformation, a phenomenon that is becoming increasingly serious in modern societies.

Yes, but misinformation is often not produced by a madman or a subversive group.

Sometimes it is produced by the same political power.

And that happens in all regimes, including the most solid democracies.

In difficult moments anesthetizing sometimes misinforms himself.

What type of regulation would then be best suited for the purpose of combating misinformation?

The best press law is the one that doesn't exist.

Article 20 of the Constitution does not need development.

In fact run away from him.

He is self-sufficient and sets concrete limits.

The remedy is for the Constitutional Court to declare that ministerial order unconstitutional because it is so clearly.

This ministerial order must fall under its own weight and must be appealed and annulled by the Constitutional Court.

And are there not also risks in leaving only the responsibility of the media and journalists to deal with misinformation?

The best defense of freedom is to set the subject free.

The newspapers that publish whatever and if it is false, it will be seen later if they have to respond.

We must always fight with freedom ahead.

Freedom and law.

In the name of National Security, democracies often establish important restrictions on fundamental rights.

Is the phenomenon of disinformation not serious enough to open the door to such exceptions?

Indeed, there are times when a country plays it.

And in those moments the rights of citizens decline.

When the very life of democracy is in danger, democracy has to defend itself.

But that is not the case in Spain now.

In this matter, in addition to a deontological debate, there is an almost ontological debate.

Because what is misinformation?

Disagreement, dissent, or differential opinion are not the same as lying.

As Orwell said in '1984', a novel that masterfully described the authoritarian state, that is, the USSR and later its imitation of the German Third Reich, technique is to play with language;

create new words and give old different meanings until a time comes when you don't know where you're going.

The concepts of the right to information and freedom of expression are perfectly unequivocal.

We don't need the word disinformation.

To continue reading for free

Sign inSign up

Or

and you will have access to all the web content of El Mundo

According to the criteria of The Trust Project

Know more