I wanted to exhibit my plastic pieces from the Vidas Encajonadas series at the Solís Theater. They accepted me and then censored me, demanding that the works be updated to inclusive language, citing the existence of a Guide to Inclusive Language, but when the inquiry was made, the Lawyers’ Chamber of the Congress of Mayors confirmed that there was no such rule. I asked for an investigation to clarify the facts and they responded that the censor had stated that the censorship was an invitation to a supposed dialogue that was also denied. I filed a criminal complaint, and the Attorney General’s Office changed its argument, stating that the censorship referred to rules of inclusion for people with disabilities and a prosecutor filed it, considering that inclusion is above the Constitution and that the abuse of authority of the Penal Code is a very vague figure. I filed the complaint with the Human Rights Institution, which agreed with me, stating that there was censorship and that inclusion is not above constitutional rights of expression. With this new evidence I have demanded that the investigation be continued by the Attorney General’s Office, but at the same time the IMM responded that it did not share the INDDHH’s opinion or recommendations for action, which was answered by another opinion reaffirming the censorship and legally denying that they had conducted an investigation. With this, the issue was referred to Parliament, where Deputy Felipe Schipani proposed in the Education Committee that the issue be analyzed and I was summoned this week, but due to agenda reasons my appearance was suspended. There I had proposed this text that I propose to create the figure of the censor and include it in the Penal Code. It cannot be that in Uruguay there is impunity and artistic creation is censored without punishment. This cannot be repeated.
Statement to the Education and Culture Committee of the Chamber of Deputies: “I stand before you, and I am very grateful for your invitation, not only as a private citizen who makes claims in relation to the violation of his rights, but as the expression of a collective voice that demands that the crime of censorship be established, the constitutional rule of freedom of expression and with it responsibilities for those who carry out acts of censorship. Article 29 of the Constitution states that “The communication of thoughts by word, private writings or published in the press, or by any other form of dissemination, is entirely free in all matters, without the need for prior censorship; the author and, where appropriate, the printer or issuer, being responsible according to the law for the abuses they commit.” But since there is no specific law or article in the Penal Code that establishes punishments and responsibilities, acts of censorship such as the one that has been committed are facilitated. Citizens and democratic society require norms that watch over and protect the Freedom of Expression established in the Constitution and International Treaties. A norm that protects and discourages by establishing punishments for those who carry out acts of censorship. It cannot be that there is no real effective protection for those who suffer censorship, nor a real punishment for those who carry out acts of censorship and who hide in these loopholes or legal loopholes. This violates the very freedom of expression that is the basis of our democratic life, creating the risk of self-censorship or forcing people to accept censorship due to a lack of tools to defend these rights and freedoms. Not everyone can take on the ordeal that I have had to protest against the censorship imposed on me by the authorities of the Solís Theatre, with no response in the administrative sphere or in the sphere of the Departmental Board and with resistance from the Attorney General’s Office, who in the first instance has filed away the abuse of authority, arguing that it is a very broad and generic legal figure with many interpretations. Legislative attempts to repeal the abuse of functions mean that the Attorney General’s Office hides behind its responsibilities. All of this ultimately leaves people defenseless against the protection of their constitutional rights to freedom of expression and facilitates acts of censorship such as the one committed against me.
The censorship was clearly determined and ratified by the National Institution of Human Rights and Ombudsman (INDDHH), and it brought us to this area. For the above I come to ask you that beyond the situation, you consider legislating the necessary legislative protection of freedom of expression and the punishment of censorship, regulating the Constitutional text. Freedom of Expression is a matter of vital importance in our democratic life as reaffirmed by the INDDHH and censors must be protected and punished.
