IFEX
12 November 2012
Source:
Reporters Without Borders
(RSF/IFEX) - 9 November 2012 - The outcry that has followed the
enactment three days ago of Costa Rica's highly controversial cybercrime
law has forced the government into a hasty about-turn. It announced
today that the legislation, which provides for up to 10 years'
imprisonment for publishing “secret political information”, would not
apply to journalists.
The law is not confined to national security but could also be
applied to information “from national police bodies or security
concerning defence matters or foreign relations” or which affects “the
fight against drug trafficking or organized crime “.
In a statement issued a day earlier, the government promised to
amend article 288 of the new law which provides for imprisonment of
between four and eight years for anyone “who procures or obtains in an
improper way secret political information”.
At the same time, the government pointed out that, under the
constitution, it had a precise time limit for the enactment of the law
after its approval by the Legislative Assembly.
“Even with the support of this argument, the enactment of such a
dangerous law that has had such a harsh reception from all journalists
is staggering,” Reporters Without Borders said. “At the same time as a
discussion in parliament, there should have been a wide-ranging public
debate around the extremely vague notion of 'secret political
information', much of which is of considerable public interest.
“A piece of legislation that is so at odds with constitutional
guarantees regarding freedom of expression and information should have
provoked a presidential veto.”
The press freedom organization concluded: “The government should
keep its word and ensure the law is amended so that its most repressive
sections are scrapped. In our view, this should apply not only to
qualified journalists or those employed by media organizations. It
concerns every citizen, blogger or writer able to research and produce
news and information. In other words, no-one should have to regard this
law as a threat.”