Chile

By Austin Gonzales

Introduction

Chilean Flag

Chile as a country has had some trouble in the past with human rights and the treatment of its citizens. This mostly came from the era of Augusto Pinochet military regime (1973-1990) in which human rights were severely infringed upon.[i] Many people called for a political reconciliation or reconstruction of the relationship between the government and its people.[ii] When Patricion

Aylwin became president in 1990 he issued in the beginning of a return to a democracy that works hand in hand with its people. He showed this when he stated “The government’s goal concerning human rights were to establish an official truth regarding past human rights violations” and “to guarantee legal, social, and political conditions that would prevent the recurrence of human rights violations.”[iii] From 1990 to the present day Chile as a country has been striving to be a country more sensitive to human rights and the needs of its people.

Reporters Without Borders Annual World Press freedom index suggest that in recent times Chile has kept good on its word to be more sensitive to the need of its people to express themselves through press. In 2012 Chile was ranked 80 on the index along with Bulgaria, Paraguay, and Serbia.[iv] In one short year they jumped all the way to 60 on the index list, only to then move up again in 2014 to 58 only 12 positions away from the United States which is ranked 46 on the index.[v] A good example of how Chile is protect its human rights would be it siding with the United States on the issue of restricting outside funding for press at the Organization of American States (OAS) extraordinary assemble. Ecuador and Bolivia had presented an idea that would restrict outside funding for newspaper organizations allowing the government to censor the paper based on its funding.[vi] This would restrict all ideas of free expression that the government didn’t want to see in their papers. The United States, Chile, and several other members of the organization voted and agreed to throw out the idea all together.[vii] Chile deciding to side with the United States at the OAS meeting shows that it is striving to become a country more reliant on a free press and free expression.

Historical Background

Early Chile was under Spanish rule until about 1809 when Napoleon invaded Spain and dethroned the king. Although there had been several earlier problems expressed by Chileans with the way Spain was ruling them, there were very few reports of major problems until 1812. With the arrival of the print and press Father Camilo Henriquez a priest turned revolution writer founded the first actual newspaper called Aurora de Chile (Dawn of Chile). This paper was where most all grievances and independence ideals were published.[viii] It is not until 1818 almost 6 years after the newspaper is published that Chile actually gains its independence from Spain. This is mainly thanks to the actions of Bernardo O’Higgins who was appointed supreme after the triumph over Spain. He was later referred to as the “Father of Chile”.[ix] This is because he laid the foundation of the two party system and a centralized government that Chile would look to for years to come.[x] A huge factor in Chilean history would be the military rule of Augusto Pinochet Ugarte in which all governmental practices were shut down. During this time the people heard things like “Congress is closed until further notice,” or “Political parties are in recess until further notice.”[xi] This was a time in Chile where the rights of the people were severely infringed upon. There was reported to be 28,000 people tortured and 3,200 deaths and disappearances to have taken place during this era of Chile’s history.[xii] It is not until 1990 and the election of a new president that Chile is set back onto the path of democracy and begins its climb to become a human rights friendly nation.

Today Chile is a thriving country with a population of 17,363,894 people and a huge market based economy.[xiii]  They are one of the leading exporters of copper and fish South America considering its location on the western coast line.[xiv]As Lois Oppenheim said in the book Politics in Chile, the shape of the country and layout can be referred to as “crazy geography.”[xv] As the country runs along the full coast line of the southern cone of South America it holds everything from deserts, to forest, and even some glaciers. Aside from the geography the rights of the people in Chile are generally respected by the government although there are still some reports of abuse by law enforcement.[xvi] Although the biggest struggle for the Chilean people is to deal with the abuse and deaths of many of their family members during the Pinochet regimen. Even though Chile has returned to a democratic republic under the control of President Michelle Bachelet, the people still feels the repercussions of the military regimen that infringed so heavily upon their rights. The constitution in Chile is one that is molded after the United States Constitution giving its people most if not all of the same right that Americans have today.[xvii] Although Chile may have had its faults in the past by infringing on its people’s rights, the Chile of today is dedicated to protecting its people’s natural rights.

Free Speech

The idea of human rights, especially free speech has always been one that was important to Chile, as long as it didn’t involve comments on government officials. In several cases Chile’s government found that its reputation was more important than the right of free speech. Throughout the years Chile has improved its views on these matters but still struggles with the full idea of free speech.

The biggest crime against free speech in Chile would have to be during the military rule of Pinochet, not only would it affect free speech at the time but would have repercussions for years to come. In an interview, Isabel Allende explained what Chile was like after Pinochet overthrew her cousin Salvador Allende and began to rule over the country. She explained the era as one that left people “scared and paralyzed in fear, that nobody wanted to get into trouble for expressing how they felt about the situation.”[xviii] During this time anyone that spoke up against the military government seemed to go missing or was tortured for long periods of time. When asked if anyone noticed these occurrences happening Isabel said, “I’m sure that most people were aware. I certainly was, and so were all my friends. However, many people managed to, or pretended to, ignore the violence and corruption of the dictatorship.”[xix] During this dark time in Chile that lasted from 1973 to 1990, over 3,000 people were killed for being associated with the old government or speaking out against the new military style government.[xx] Being a journalist herself, Isabel was forced to leave the country for fear of also being abducted due to her views and close ties with the old government. She lived in Caracas for 13 years hiding out until 1990 when Chile returned to a democracy again.[xxi] Even though Chile has returned to a democracy and has revived its protections of free speech many families still feel the hurt and sting of all the lives lost due to this horrible suppression of free expression.

Even though Chile has returned to a democracy there are still some instances where it views government reputation over free speech. A good example was the case of Francisco Javier Cuadra who was a conservative lawyer, political analyst, and member of the Center-Right Renovacion Nacional.[xxii] In 1994, Cuadra was invited to a dinner party being held by a Frei administration interior ministry official who was a member of the socialist party.[xxiii] Also at the party were several other members of the socialist party including a senator.[xxiv] According to Cuadra the senator discussed drug use among several members of congress and even mentioned names of said members. A few weeks later in an extensive interview for Que Pasa magazine, Cuadra discussed political development and almost as a side note mentioned drug use in Chile. He then began to say how “most media attention had gone to drug use by the poor, but what about the drug use by Chile’s elite?”[xxv] He told the interviewer that, “there are some parliamentarians and other public functionaries who consume drugs.”[xxvi] These simple statements brought on an uproar of disapproval from senators and congressional deputies. This lead to January 30, 1995 where the senate president, Christian Democrat Gabriel Valdes, the president of the chamber of deputies, filed charges against Cuadra.[xxvii] The basis for this suit was the State Security Law that was put in place by Pinochet in the 1980’s. The law had been kept after he was removed from office, the law states that no person should criticize members of the government for it may endanger the ability for the government to run smoothly. When brought to court the first trial indicted Cuadra under the State Security Law and a criminal code for “defaming the honor of congress.”[xxviii]  Cuadra appealed a month later and the verdict was reversed. According to Judge Carlos Cerda, “Cuadra had made a constructive use of his free speech,” and “Cuadra’s statements were an attempt to sound an alarm over a possible threat to public order.”[xxix] Soon after the Senate filed a writ of complaint to the Supreme Court about Cerda and the other judges who overturned the original ruling. This lead to the Supreme Court upholding the original verdict and reinstating Cuadra’s prison sentence.[xxx]  This one case would soon lead to a fear of being convicted under the State Security Law, which allowed politicians to file lawsuits for slander. In April of 2001 Chile finally removed article 6 of the State Security Law which allowed public officials to file lawsuits for slander.[xxxi] Although it did refuse to remove its criminal code which had provisions similar to the state law that allowed state representatives to file suits for slander.

After the rule of Pinochet came to an end he still seemed to have significant power in the country. He caused several cases in which people were arrest for expressing their views of him and his control in Chile. An important figure head for the Communist party in Chile would actually suffer these exact charges and be locked in a constant battle throughout the rest of her life in fighting for fair treatment of all in Chile. Her name was Gladys Marin; she was secretary general of the communist party and was asked to speak at the 23rd anniversary of military coup that was held in honor of the soldiers that died during Pinochet’s rule.  While giving her speech she stated to those who were currently in office that, “The main person responsible for the crimes against humanity, Pinochet, was still in politics and giving orders,” and “he does so because the government allows him to.”  Six days later she was arrested on a lawsuit Pinochet had filed against critics in his abilities as Chile’s army commander. This was one of many lawsuits filed by Pinochet against his critics in which all cases always turned out in favor of Pinochet. Although Marin’s lawyer put together a strong case the justices still ruled in favor of Pinochet only one justice dissented. In his dissent he stated, “It was up to Chilean citizens not the justices to make up decisions about political opinions.”  In the end defense minister Edmundo Yoma got Pinochet to drop the charges, this case still shows that Chile’s justice system was very corrupt and believed that governmental control and fear were more important than free speech.

Besides the struggle for people’s rights to express their views of their government, Chile is actually a country that supports free speech and free expression. Even in the current constitution of Chile there are several articles that speak about the right to free speech and expression.  This explains why Freedom House ranks Chile as a “Partly Free” country, because even though there are restrictions on what can be said about the government there are very few restrictions on protesting for something you believe in.[xxxii] There have been several instances in this past year at which Chileans were allowed to protest their beliefs on education and even reform policies that were not interrupted by the government. These rallies are the very essence and proof that Chile is a country that mostly supports free speech.

Although they started in 2011 and have carried on to this past year, the massive student rallies for education reform are a good example of Chileans exercising their right of free speech to show their government that they are unhappy. In April 2013 tens of thousands of students flooded the streets of Santiago to protest for education reform.[xxxiii] The students were demanding that the education system be reformed to make it easier for all students alike to receive an education. For the most part the rallies and marches are peaceful, with students that chant slogans that deal with education, dance in the streets, and even dress in costumes.[xxxiv] It was not until arson groups dressed in hoods begin to clash with police that riot squads are called to disperse the rallies.[xxxv] Besides these arson groups, the rallies were a good example of Chilean students fully exercising their right of free speech witch is given to them by their constitution. These rallies have even made a difference because the president of Chile, Michelle Bachelet, who just currently took office in 2014, is working with leaders of the student rallies to make education better for future Chilean students.[xxxvi] Showing the Chileans students freedom to express their concerns may soon pay off in the near future.

Another example of Chileans exercising their rights would be the “March of all Marches”: a rally that took place shortly after President Bachelet took office.[xxxvii] Twenty-five thousand Chileans took to the streets to voice their concerns on Bachelet’s plan to replace Pinochet’s constitution with one that protects everyone’s human rights.[xxxviii] This act would forever change Chile’s current human rights status and may even change its “Partly Free” status to a “Completely Free” country in the aspects of human rights. Bachelet had announced her plan to change the constitution shortly after she had won the presidential race, and the rally was to insure that she kept her word to the Chilean people.[xxxix] The rally was mostly peaceful until arsonists once again clashed with police causing several injuries and about fifty arrests.[xl] Besides these instances of violence we can see again the Chileans were encouraged to exercise their rights of free speech and may soon be allowed to fully exercise these rights under the president’s new Constitution.

Free Press

In an Article from Freedom House on the freedom of the press in Chile it is said that, “Freedoms of speech and of the press are guaranteed in Chile’s constitution. However, criminal defamation laws have been used to silence journalists throughout the country’s return to democracy.”[xli]            Many journalists have been silenced due to these laws which were intended to strike fear into any journalist who wanted to speak up against the wrong Pinochet had done during his reign of Chile. Even after Pinochet’s era the laws were kept in place to restrict what journalist could say about the democracy of Chile and all that was happening. Throughout Chile’s past, there is strong proof of a suppressed and restrictions on journalist and the press.

A huge free press issue in Chilean history would be the actual idea of a free press during the Pinochet era. As mentioned earlier Pinochet took control of the country in 1973 and ran it until about 1990 as its dictator.[xlii] During this time Pinochet used his power to control and censor the press as he saw fit. The Television Nacional (TVN) and La Nacion newspaper were used as “aggressive propaganda machines,” which allowed him to decide what was broadcasted over the media.[xliii] This was a dark time for Chile in which its media was a work horse for the government and the press was allowed very little freedoms. Any papers that were not controlled by the government were supported by Christian Democratic parties that were barely sold or read.[xliv] One reason that the independent papers did so poorly was due to the fear inflicted on the people of being captured by the military and tortured for believing differently than Pinochet. The press was not truly free again until the presidency of Patricio Aylwin, in which the TVN tried to distance itself from the censorship of Pinochet. Even though Pinochet was no longer in charge it seemed like the presses’ prayers were answered, but in actuality Pinochet not being in power would only lead to larger issues for the press of Chile.

When Patricio Aylwin became president in 1990 Chile as a country was looking forward to a brighter future for their free press rights, or so they thought. The TVN began to broadcast more editorial stories and less of the propaganda that had been displayed over the last year.[xlv] This lead to several issues involving the media coverage over the fairly new government officials. In the book The Generals Slow Retreat it is said by some of the journalists that, “They thought they had the right to ask us to publish what they wanted, and not to publish what they did not want.”[xlvi]  The government still felt that they had the right to determine what the press and media said about them, and in fact under the State Security Law the government could. Due to the fear of being prosecuted for defamation of a political figure, many newspaper or television networks would only publish what the government officials approved. Meaning even though it was the journalist constitutional right to a free press they were censored by the fear brought on by the State Security Law. Not only could they not write about the current government they also could not write about anything that had happened in the Pinochet due to the fact that he was still in charge of the military and would soon be self-appointed to the position of senator for life by himself. Just like the incident with Gladys Marin, any person that tried to write or speak out against what Pinochet had done they would find themselves serving a jail sentence and would soon be taken to court for defamation under the State Security Law. Even though his reign was over, he still had a very heavy pull in the court systems and had several people locked up for speaking up against him and things he had done. A rising fear or defamation charges amongst journalist would soon lead to an era of bland and uninteresting press that would last until the time Pinochet passes away in 2006.[xlvii]

Although Pinochet has passed away several of his followers are still at large and trying to stop journalist from revealing the governmental corruption that took place during his reign. Even though defamation charges have begun to be less frequent throughout Chile there is still a fear to write stories about anything controversial. This is due to the large number of burglaries and vandalisms occurring in several reporters’ homes and vehicles. A good example of this is journalist Mauricio Weible whose house and car were broken into to try and obtain information about the torture victims of the Pinochet area.[xlviii] Many other journalist besides Weible, have had their homes vandalized or broken into in attempts to stop the information from getting out. Although this is not exactly a free press issue in terms of the judicial systems, it best shows why journalists in Chile fear bringing about controversial stories. Not only do journalist like Mauricio have to worry for fear of defamation charges, but also they have to fear for their own safety if they choose to exercise their free press rights.

Although defamation is still a problem that is restricting journalist ability to report the controversial stories that help keep government in check as they do in the United States. There are several major issues in free speech both good and bad that have occurred over the past year in Chile that involve free press issues. These issues will soon start to shape the future of Chile’s media and free press in ways that it has not yet seen.

A positive turn of events in Chile may lead to a brighter outlook for the freedom of press and journalism in the country. This is due to Chile siding with the United States and several other countries at the Organization of American States (OAS) extreme assembly on the issues of restricting where media gets its funding. This idea was presented by Bolivia and Ecuador at the assemble in hopes that with approval the countries would be able to control their papers better if the only funding was coming from the government alone.[xlix] As mentioned earlier the United States, Chile, and several other countries refused the idea recognizing that the press was meant to be a watch dog of the press and should not be restricted on what it can print due by the threat of government funding. Although this doesn’t seem like a huge turn of events for the United States in Chile this was a huge statement. Due to the fact that in Chile there is such a high fear of being sued for defamation of government officials as we have seen in the past. For it to say that it sides with the Unites States on the rights of free speech and free press may be the first signs of a huge change in Chilean policy. This is to also go along with the Chilean president’s plan to reform the constitution to improve the human rights for the people of Chile. These two facts alone may be enough for the journalists and reporters of Chile to be excited about a bright and free future for the press rights.

Although Chile is making a step in the direction of a free press by siding against Bolivia and Ecuador it still has a huge problem hanging over the area of free press in its county. As of 2014 Reporters Without Borders (RWB) submitted recommendations to the UN Human Rights Council on which to discuss when they look ever how Chile is doing in the areas of free speech and free press.[l] RWB would have that Chile, “enact new laws to create a balance between the various types of broadcasting organizations.”[li] Currently in Chile over ninety-five percent of all newspaper titles are owned by two companies allowing for a very biased and censored press. Although the companies are privately owned and operated depending on who wished to fund, these companies can influence the news to say whatever they wish. So although the press may have the right to be free in this act of pluralism they are actually censoring the press. RWB would have that Chile break up these two news organizations allowing for a more diverse news and media outlet than what Chile Currently has. Although the legislation has not come through Chile’s congress it is one of the big topics alongside education reform that Chile will be dealing with in the next couple of years.

Critical Comparison

In comparison to the United States, the people of Chile are given a lot of the same rights allotted to American citizens. In Chile’s Constitution they are guaranteed free speech and press rights same as the United States.[lii]  The only difference is their laws on defamation and libel that allow government officials to sue if something is said about them or the part of the government that they work for that may cause harm. This makes it very hard for Chileans to actually express their rights of free speech and press for fear of being sued or placed in jail for their opinions. A great example of this would be the case mentioned earlier of Cuadra, who was locked away and sued for libel charges by several members of Chile’s government in 1995.[liii] All he did was talk of the idea that there were several members of the congress and senate using drugs and was sued under Chile’s defamation laws. His conviction was actually overturned on an appeal just to be reversed by the Supreme Court of Chile, drawing the final line on where Chile stood on libel and defamation of public officials. This struck fear into most of Chile clearly showing that you could speak freely just not at the expense of the government.  The limitations on liable are a completely different story in the United States where we have explicitly stated that government officials cannot sue for libel unless they can prove actual malice.[liv] This decision came from the Supreme Court case of New York Times v. Sullivan in 1964, 31 years before the Cuadra case. This Supreme Court case in which a commissioner from Alabama sued the Times for an advertisement that he said libeled him.[lv] In the lower courts, Sullivan’s case won and the court awarded him $500,000 dollars in libel damages. The Times appealed to the Supreme Court where the ruling was overturned in favor of the Times. One of the court’s main reasons for ruling this way was because if they ruled against the Times it would allow for more people to sue newspapers for printing controversial stories. This would hinder the paper from ever printing anything that could be considered libel making the paper very bland. This is exactly what happened in Chile after their Supreme Court ruled in favor of the government instead of the news media, the paper became very bland and never covered anything controversial about government officals.

Even though Chile and the United States constitutions are similar due to the opposite rulings in these cases the ideas of free press and speech are completely different. In these respects the United States would be a country that has a press less bound by fear and allowed to write freely. Allowing it to be a freer country than that of Chile. If the case of Cuadra would have been decided in the United States, assuming by what happened in New York Times v. Sullivan, Cuadra’s conviction would have held and not been over turned allowing for the Chile’s people and press to be the proper watch dogs of government that they were intended to be. On the other hand if the Sullivan case would have been held in Chile’s Supreme Court the New York Times would be out $500,000 dollars and our current system of free press would not be as free as it is today. This being said we can even go further and say if the United States was run the way the Chile runs its government then the case of New York Times v. United States would have also had a completely different ruling. This would be the historic case of the Pentagon papers and which the government for the first time recognized the press and a fourth check on government. Without these checks on government then the officials could get away with just about anything they pleased. This idea has been recognized by many reporters of Chile one even stated that, “Without the press to report what the government is doing our representatives could rob a bank and nothing could be said about it without fear of being sued.”[lvi] This statement could be no truer in showing why the United States government ruled the way it did, and why the Chilean idea of free press and speech differs from the United States views.

The United States is a country with multiple outlets that allow its citizens to interpret the media in more ways than one. As compared to Chile where there is only two large newspaper companies that pluralize all the topics of Chile, allowing for a very biased newspaper. Once again Chileans have the same free press rights as the United States but due to its limited amount of publishers the press is censored on what it can and cannot say. As to where the United States has countless amounts of news media outlets that allow a free flow of ideas that are good and bad.  As the title of Anthony Lewis’s book says the United States truly allows for “Freedom for the thought that we hate.”[lvii] As to where Chile only allows the thoughts that its government or publishers see fit. Although there is hope for the Chileans with the election of their new president Michelle Bachelet, and her plans to change Chile for the better. According to an article from the web site I Love Chile it is said that the president plans to provide, “free education, reform the tax-system and the constitution, and equal salaries for men and women.”[lviii] The president is said first to respond to the issues of free education for all students, then start to work on writing a new constitution. This new constitution will be what allows for the major changes in Chilean society allowing for better protection of human rights, and it will take away the ability for government officials to abuse their power like they so do today. There currently are no extensive details as to how the president is going to rewrite the constitution, but she has promised before her term as president is up to make major changes to how the people of Chile are treated under the constitution. Michelle Bachelet is striving to change Chile for the better by making her country one that recognizes the people’s right to free speech and free press.

Altogether Chile has come a long way from the Pinochet era where the press was subject to abide by strict laws that made it difficult to have a truly free press. With its new president and its peoples call for stronger human rights, Chile may be on its way to being a strong advocate for free speech and press. In comparison to the United States, it falls short of the greater freedoms of speech and press that are said to be had in the United States. With strict libel and defamatory laws on top of a lack of divers press, it is seen why Chile is ranked number 58 and the United States is ranked number 46 on the Freedom Index provided by Reporters without Borders.[lix] Chile is a country not only with one of the strongest governments in Latin America democracies, but may soon be one of the greatest advocates for the human rights of free speech and press.

(Last Updated April 30, 2014)

[i] Silvia Borzutzky and Lois Oppenheim, After Pinochet the Chilean Road to Democracy and the Market (Florida: University Press of Florida, 2006), 4.

[ii] Colleen Murphy, The European Legacy, Vol. 12, No. 7, 2007, http://faculty.las.illinois.edu/colleenm/Research/07%20Eurp%20Legacy.pdf, (March 21, 2014).

[iii] Silvia Borzutzky and Lois Oppenheim, 5.

[iv]   Reporters without Borders, World Press Freedom Index, 2012-2014, http://rsf.org/index2014/en-americas.php#.

[v] http://rsf.org/index2014/en-americas.php#.

[vi] Committee to Protect Journalist, At OAS, a victory for human rights and free expression, http://www.cpj.org/blog/2013/03/at-oas-a-victory-for-human-rights-and-free-express.php#more, (March 22, 2014).

[vii] http://www.cpj.org/blog/2013/03/at-oas-a-victory-for-human-rights-and-free-express.php#more, (March 22, 2014).

[viii] Elizabeth Hutchison, Thomas Klubock, Nara Milanich, Peter Winn, The Chile Reader: history, culture, politics (Duke University Press, 2014), 122.

[ix] Elizabeth Hutchison, Thomas Klubock, Nara Milanich, Peter Winn, 122.

[x] Information Please, Chile: history, http://www.infoplease.com/country/chile.html?pageno=1, (March 21, 2014).

[xi] Louis Hecht Oppenheim, Politics in Chile (Colorado: Westive Press, 2007), 3.

[xii] , http://www.infoplease.com/country/chile.html?pageno=1, (March 21, 2014).

[xiii] Central Intelligence Agency, The World Factbook, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ci.html, (March 21, 2014).

[xiv] https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ci.html, (March 21, 2014).

[xv] Louis Hecht Oppenheim, 4.

[xvi] US Department of State, Chile, http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2006/78884.htm, (March 22, 2014).

[xvii] The Catholic University of America, The legal system of the Republic of Chile, http://www.law.edu/ComparativeLaw/Chile/, (March 22, 2014).

[xviii] Amnesty International, Life under Pinochet – Isabel Allende: ‘The day we buried our freedom’, https://www.amnesty.org/en/news/life-under-pinochet-isabel-allende-day-we-buried-our-freedom-2013-09-11, (March 22, 2014).

[xix] https://www.amnesty.org/en/news/life-under-pinochet-isabel-allende-day-we-buried-our-freedom-2013-09-11, (March 22, 2014).

[xx] https://www.amnesty.org/en/news/life-under-pinochet-isabel-allende-day-we-buried-our-freedom-2013-09-11, (March 22, 2014).

[xxi] https://www.amnesty.org/en/news/life-under-pinochet-isabel-allende-day-we-buried-our-freedom-2013-09-11, (March 22, 2014).

[xxii] Mary Helen Spooner, The General’s Slow Retreat: Chile After Pinochet (California: University of California Press, 2011), 125.

[xxiii] Mary Helen Spooner, 125.

[xxiv] Mary Helen Spooner, 125.

[xxv] Mary Helen Spooner, 126.

[xxvi] Mary Helen Spooner, 126.

[xxvii] Mary Helen Spooner, 126.

[xxviii] Mary Helen Spooner, 128.

[xxix] Mary Helen Spooner, 129.

[xxx] Mary Helen Spooner, 129.

[xxxi] Mary Helen Spooner, 132.

[xxxii] Freedom House, Chile, http://www.freedomhouse.org/country/chile#.Uy-l0PldX1A, (March 23, 2014).

[xxxiii] Huffington Post, Chilean Students Protest in the Streets Demanding Free Education, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/12/chilean-students-protest-free-education_n_3069791.html, (March 23, 2014).

[xxxiv] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/12/chilean-students-protest-free-education_n_3069791.html, (March 23, 2014).

[xxxv] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/12/chilean-students-protest-free-education_n_3069791.html, (March 23, 2014).

[xxxvi] BBC, Chile’s Michelle Bachelet faces first protest, http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-26703699, (March 23, 2014).

[xxxvii] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-26703699, (March 23, 2014).

[xxxviii] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-26703699, (March 23, 2014).

[xxxix] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-26703699, (March 23, 2014).

[xl] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-26703699, (March 23, 2014).

[xli] Freedom House, Chile: Freedom of the Press, http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-press/2013/chile#.Uy-8lfldX1A, (March 24, 2014).

[xlii] Silvia Borzutzky and Lois Oppenheim, 4.

[xliii] Mary Helen Spooner, 130.

[xliv] Mary Helen Spooner, 131.

[xlv] Mary Helen Spooner, 130.

[xlvi] Mary Helen Spooner, 131.

[xlvii] Mary Helen Spooner, 133.

[xlviii] I Love Chile, Pinochet Supporters Terrorize Chilean Journalists, http://www.ilovechile.cl/2012/12/20/pinochet-supporters-terrorize-journalists/75892, (March 24, 2014).

[xlix] http://www.cpj.org/blog/2013/03/at-oas-a-victory-for-human-rights-and-free-express.php#more, (March 24, 2014).

[l] Reporters without Borders, RWB urges Chile to enact new media laws in submission to Human Rights Council, https://en.rsf.org/chile-rwb-urges-chile-to-enact-new-media-17-06-2013,44810.html, (March 24, 2014).

[li] https://en.rsf.org/chile-rwb-urges-chile-to-enact-new-media-17-06-2013,44810.html, (March 24, 2014

[lii] , http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-press/2013/chile#.Uy-8lfldX1A, (March 24, 2014).

[liii] Mary Helen Spooner, 126.

[liv] New York Times v. Sullivan 376 U.S. 254 (1964), 726.

[lv] New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), 713.

[lvi] Mary Helen Spooner, 133.

[lvii] Anthony Lewis, Freedom for the Thought We Hate (New York: Basic Books, 2007)

[lviii] I Love Chile, Michelle Bachelet Inaugurated as President of Chile,http://www.ilovechile.cl/2014/03/11/michelle-bachelet-inaugurated-president-chile/104982, (April 9, 2014).

[lix]Reporters without Borders, World Press Freedom Index, 2012-2014, http://rsf.org/index2014/en-americas.php#.