Posted on March 4, 2011 by Genaro Villamil precedent of direct censorship.
The worst case, lawmakers agreed, is that if this tape, the judiciary became "judge and party", because on the one hand is the focus of criticism content of the film and the other, corresponds to a judge, a member of that institution, to settle the controversy surrounding the film exhibition.
For his part, the head of the Federal District, Marcelo Ebrard, argued against the federal judge's order to suspend the display of suspects and anticipated that if necessary it could be exhibited in public places in Mexico City.
Ebrard Casaubon was a provision added that "half Egyptian, in which 'turn off their Facebook, your Twitter, that's not possible and you can not stop people watching a film, we in freedom and this is what will it look. "
wrong decision
In the Senate, the chairmen of committees of Culture, Maria Rojo, Radio and TV, Carlos Sotelo, the coordinator of PAN senators, José González Morfin, in addition to the PRI Carlos Jiménez Macías and also coordinator of the senators of the PRD, Carlos Navarrete, stressed that it was a wrong decision and should be reviewed.
The chairman of the Senate Interior Committee, the PRI Jesús Murillo Karam, said: "Let me tell you something very telling: At this point the film is very useful, in Congress passed a reform criminal and gave us eight years of time to implement it, there are five years. This film is opportune because it raises awareness the need to accelerate that change. "
The PRD Maria Rojo said:" This smacks of censorship. I have the experience of the films task Chinameca Zapata, El ananda, Las Poquianchis is a long list. "stressed that since the white rose in the early 50's, had not been a case of censorship like this.
Juan Carlos Sotelo, also of the PRD, said in conference press that "the suspension of the display dePresunto culprit is a case of blatant censorship. The judiciary assumes a role of censor, is a dangerous precedent of direct censorship, is one of the greatest outrages against freedom of expression. "
Carlos Navarro, coordinator of the PRD in the Senate, noted that "a citizen who has constitutional rights could have recourse to other legal instruments to protect, is the trial for moral damages or civil proceedings, but it is not right the way of amparo. "
For its part, the coordinator of PAN senators, Jose Gonzalez Morfin said disservice makes the judge the judiciary, "which is so badly after seeing this film, it does not tell anything other than what actually happens in court. The judge was wrong. Trials are public records as well. "
In turn, the PRI's Carlos Jimenez Macias said" there has been an impressive protest, are clear failures "to try to get the movie billboard .
Meanwhile, in the House of Representatives did vote for the rectification of the court ruling that prohibits the display of suspects. During the meeting, legislators from all parties condemned the suspension of documentary, considering that it is an act of censorship which violates the freedom of expression.
On behalf of the Labour Party, Porfirio Munoz Ledo proposed to display the Channel documentary by Congress, while members of the PRI Arturo Zamora and Francisco Rojas confident that "the decision of the judge will have to be modified to also allow the screening of the documentary in theaters. " Meanwhile, the vicecoordnador PAN, Carlos Alberto Pérez Cuevas said that one must respect the freedom of expression in the screening of the documentary.
Meanwhile, interviewed in Leon, Guanajuato, the rector of the Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico (UNAM), Jose Narro Robles, said that the order to suspend the display of suspects threaten freedom of expression.
Source: Jenarovillamil
0 comments:
Post a Comment