News of the repeal of two articles of Costa Rica's Press Law was received with optimism by local and international press freedom organizations.
And with good reason. The Press Law, dating back to 1902, punishes journalists, editors and those responsible for publications with up to 180 days of arrest for defamation. Furthermore, it also gives the same penalty to those who, through publications, attempt to "subvert order" or harm friendly relations with other States.
With unanimous approval (43 votes in favor and none against), the country's Legislative Assembly approved the "Law for the freedom of journalistic practice" which repeals articles 7 and 8 of the aforementioned law that establish these penalties.
“This was a regulatory remnant and an outstanding debt of Costa Rica,” Giselle Boza, coordinator of the Freedom of Expression and Right to Information Program at the University of Costa Rica, told LatAm Journalism Review (LJR).
Boza explained, for example, that the Inter-American Court of Human Rights decisions have drawn the State's attention to the existence of this law from the previous century.
Organizations such as the Institute for Press Freedom and Expression (IPLEX, for its Spanish initials) and the Inter-American Press Association (IAPA) expressed their satisfaction with the Assembly's decision. The IPLEX said this is the culmination of a struggle of more than 20 years to eliminate "punitive norms inherited from an authoritarian past."
“Eliminating these criminal penalties is not a simple technical adjustment: it represents the recognition that in a mature democracy, ideas—even the most uncomfortable ones—must be confronted with arguments, not punishments,” IPLEX said in a statement.
However, Boza, who also expressed satisfaction with the repeal, believes the impact of the recent law's approval will not be as great as expected.
The Press Law, she said, established days of arrest, not prison sentences. In practical terms, and according to the country's Penal Code, for sentences of less than three years, people would not go to jail. However, the repeal is important, Boza said, because it avoids confusion between days of arrest and prison sentences.
“It is an important step forward; it was necessary to eliminate that legal norm that was still being cited in judicial rulings, but we still have outstanding debts regarding the decriminalization of crimes against honor, especially when the content consists of expressions of public interest,” Boza said.
The fact that crimes against honor are punished in the country's Penal Code with fines makes journalistic practice very burdensome, and makes the complete decriminalization of crimes against honor necessary, she said.
Boza added that there is a need to establish anti-SLAPP mechanisms. SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) use the legal system to obstruct professions such as journalism. According to Boza, the use of these lawsuits is becoming common in the country, as in the case of an influencer and environmental activist whose assets and accounts were seized after hotel representatives filed a complaint alleging defamation.
“[The recent law] has a very grand name. I think the change is small, necessary, but insufficient,” Boza said. “I’m glad of the change, but I think we need much more for the freedom of journalistic practice.”
In addition to these issues, Boza points out that the law has not yet received presidential approval. In other words, it is not yet in effect.
As Boza points out, the concern about criminalization in defamation cases goes beyond prison sentences.
One of the most emblematic cases is that of journalist Marlon Mora, who has already faced three trials in a defamation case and been ordered to pay up to an estimated US$150,000 in penalties. Since 2019, Mora has faced a defamation lawsuit filed by former presidential candidate Juan Diego Castro.
In 2017, Mora was the director of Channel 15 of the University of Costa Rica (UCR). The University's Governing Council requested airtime for the Student Federation. Later that year, "Suave un Toque" was launched, a political satire program produced by students and broadcast on that channel. Its slogan was: "On this news program, everything is ridiculous and absurd, but very little is actually made up," as reported by the media outlet Divergentes.
Journalist Marlon Mora. (Photo: Courtesy)
The program was very successful, Mora told LJR. At a time when Facebook dominated social media, the program gained over 100,000 followers on that platform in less than a week, Mora said.
With the 2018 elections approaching, the program aired specials about the candidates. One of the programs focused on the three candidates who were leading in the polls at that time, including Castro.
For a little over six minutes, the presenter talks about Castro and aspects of his past, such as when, as Minister of Security in 1995, he arrived at the Legislative Assembly with police officers, some armed with rifles, revolvers and wearing bulletproof vests, to protest a reform to the Penal Code. For this, he received a motion of censure from Congress.
Mora said that after the program aired, Castro asked for information about the students and the program, but he never requested a correction. In 2019, Castro filed a criminal complaint against Mora, the University and the program's host for defamation.
“What [Castro] is saying is ‘you are the director of the channel, and you are responsible for what is published on the channel. And under your responsibility, my honor and dignity were affected,’” Marcela Rodríguez, Mora’s lawyer, told LJR.
From the perspective of the right to freedom of expression, Rodríguez said, the accusation against Mora has no legal basis. Castro's request would imply that Mora should have engaged in prior censorship (preventing the program's broadcast), violating the students' freedom of expression. Furthermore, as the channel's director, he had no editorial control over the program.
During the first trial, which took place in 2020, Castro and his lawyers withdrew from the proceedings, claiming illness. The case was dismissed. However, two years later, Castro appealed, and a second trial began.
In that second trial, Mora faced a legal action where some of his belongings were seized ahead of the case, meaning his bank accounts and assets were frozen, Rodríguez said. Both the presenter and the University reached an agreement with Castro, so only Mora is facing trial.
In 2023, a court convicted Mora of defamation and, among other penalties, ordered the publication of the full 194-page ruling in a national newspaper. According to Mora's calculations, that could all amount to an estimated US$150,000.
The decision was successfully appealed, and for that reason he is awaiting a third trial that has already been rescheduled twice: its new date was set for November 2026.
“Legally, I’m as good as dead,” said Mora, who explained how, due to the seizure of his assets and the entire legal process, he hasn’t been able to hold down a stable job since. Even the freelance work he does find has trouble paying him due to his frozen assets.
Boza said his case demonstrates how, without a prison sentence, defamation cases continue to affect journalistic work.
“Judges are still not entirely clear on the importance of protecting the press and expressions of public interest in a democratic society,” Boza said. “There is a bill to shift the issue of crimes against honor to civil penalties, but we must remember that civil sanctions could also be disproportionate in some respects.”
Rodríguez, Mora's lawyer, believes that if the recent law is passed, it could help in the journalist's case. But like Boza, she believes there is still much progress to be made in protecting freedom of expression.
“It’s a crazy thing. I’m very emotionally stable, so I think that’s helped me a lot to cope. But anyone would go crazy with what’s happened to me,” Mora said.
Various organizations such as the UN, the Inter-American Court and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights have made constant calls for crimes such as defamation, slander and libel to be removed from criminal law.
In the case of Latin America and the Caribbean, 29 of the 33 States maintain the criminalization of these offenses, according to a 2022 report. Worldwide, 160 States penalize defamation.
UNESCO has also been among the organizations that “has consistently called for the decriminalization of defamation,” Tarja Turtia, head of UNESCO’s Freedom of Expression and Safety of Journalists Section, told LJR. The request seeks to align with the stipulations of the UN Human Rights Committee, which states that imprisonment is not the appropriate sanction in these cases, Turtia added.
However, this is not the only way journalism is affected. In various reports, UNESCO has expressed concern about SLAPPs, the use of financial laws to pressure journalists, and, more generally, the "weaponization of the legal system" that has increased censorship in newsrooms.
“Abusive legal claims against journalists are a priority concern, not only for the financial, psychological and legal consequences they entail for the journalists who are targeted, but also for their chilling effect on freedom of expression more broadly,” Turtia said.
This article was translated with AI assistance and reviewed by Teresa Mioli
