Censorhip to the media, a freedom of speech dilema

 CENSORSHIP TO THE MEDIA, A FREEDOM OF SPEECH DILEMMA

The Court studied the claim of unconstitutionality submitted by a citizen against the articles 94, 95 and 97 of the Law No. 104 of 1993 “By means of which are consecrated some instruments in pursuit of the cohabitation, the effectiveness of justice and are dictated some other dispositions” for being considered contrary to the articles 20 and 73 of the Political Constitution.The aforesaid norms contemplated that some information, such as the communications originated from guerilla groups and other criminal organizations associated to illegal drug trade and terrorism, couldn’t be divulgated without the permission of the Communications Ministry. The Tribunal studied the statutory laws, distinguishing them from the ordinary laws, its hierarchy, constitutional purposes and the strict exigencies to their adoption and modification. Regarding the specific topic, the Court remarked that the regulation of the fundamental rights is reserved to the qualified procedure of the statutory laws, in that sense, as the present disposition regulated intrinsic aspects of the fundamental right to inform contemplated in the article 20 of the Constitution, it should have been adopted by the utter of a statutory law, therefore, as the dispositions didn’t followed that procedure, they were declared unconstitutional.