Landmark Press Freedom Case in Paraguay: When Gender Protection Laws Were Used for Media Censorship

A significant legal battle in Paraguay has drawn international attention by highlighting the tension between women’s protection laws and press freedom. The case, known as Zuni Mousques vs. Christian Chena, began on January 12, 2024, when a Paraguayan court attempted to silence media reports on alleged corruption using gender-based violence legislation.

The Origin of the Conflict: A Retweet That Sparked Controversy

The controversy started when Christian Chena, a well-known businessman, shared a retweet on Twitter that included a video denouncing alleged irregularities at Paraguay’s Social Security Institute (IPS). The video mentioned Gisele Zuni Mousques, the wife of then-IPS president Darío Filártiga, as allegedly participating in corrupt procurement schemes. According to the report, Mousques was nicknamed “Madame 20%” for supposedly receiving kickbacks from government contracts.

Following the retweet, Judge Gloria Machuca issued a ruling prohibiting Chena and his digital news outlet RDN from publishing any content about Mousques for a 365-day period. The judge cited Law 5777/16, Paraguay’s comprehensive women’s protection legislation, arguing that the video and its related comments constituted media and telematic violence against Mousques.

Chena’s Defense: An Appeal Based on Freedom of Expression

Chena’s legal team, led by attorney Alejandra Peralta, challenged the ruling through an appeal based on three critical arguments:

1. Prior Censorship: The judge ruled that reposting previously published information, such as Chena’s retweet, was not protected by freedom of expression.
2. Incitement Classification: Chena was held responsible for third-party content due to his retweet, broadening the concept of “incitement” on social media in a dangerous way.
3. Lack of Specificity in the Ruling: The court failed to specify which posts could be considered media violence under Law 5777/16, violating the principle of legality.

The defense argued that using gender protection laws to restrict reports on potential corruption set a dangerous precedent for press freedom in Paraguay.

Ruling Overturned: A Victory for Press Freedom

In April 2024, Appeals Court Judge Rossana Frutos Olguín overturned the initial ruling, marking a significant victory for press freedom. The judge determined that the information shared by Chena and RDN about alleged irregularities at a public institution was in the public interest and, therefore, protected by freedom of expression.

Judge Frutos Olguín emphasized that press freedom is a cornerstone of any democratic system, warning that restricting such reports would weaken public oversight of government and potentially lead to authoritarian practices.

The Role of the Supreme Court and Legal Uncertainty

Despite the appeal court’s decision, Gisele Zuni Mousques filed a motion of unconstitutionality before Paraguay’s Supreme Court, seeking to invalidate the ruling by Judge Frutos Olguín. However, as of January 2025, the Supreme Court has yet to admit the case for review, leaving a legal vacuum in the country’s press freedom jurisprudence.

The restraining order prohibiting Chena and RDN from publishing information about Mousques expired on January 12, 2025, but the Supreme Court’s silence has drawn criticism from journalists and media organizations. Attorney Alejandra Peralta described the court’s inaction as a missed opportunity to set clear judicial guidelines for protecting press freedom, particularly in cases involving corruption reports.

Balancing Gender Protection Laws and Press Freedom

This case has underscored the need to balance gender protection laws with the fundamental right to freedom of expression, which is essential for transparency, citizen oversight, and democracy.

Without clear judicial guidelines on how Law 5777/16 should be applied, there is a risk that judges will misuse the law to restrict the dissemination of critical information or corruption allegations, jeopardizing citizens’ right to access information that impacts public governance and decision-making.

Conclusion: A Warning for Press Freedom in Latin America

The Zuni Mousques vs. Christian Chena case has become a landmark example of how women’s protection laws can be weaponized to suppress media freedom. The overturning of the initial ruling was a victory for press freedom, reaffirming that the right to information must take precedence over restrictive measures when the content concerns public interest issues like government transparency and corruption investigations.

Join our WhatsApp channel

However, the Supreme Court’s silence has left legal uncertainty and raised concerns about future attempts to restrict media coverage under the guise of gender protection laws.

This case has become a reference point in Latin America for discussions on balancing personal protection laws with freedom of the press, highlighting the importance of clear judicial limits to prevent anti-violence laws from being used as tools of censorship.