Who defends freedom of expression in Latin America? New data for an old debate – By Juan Martín Marinangeli

Who Defends Freedom of Expression in Latin America? New Data for an Old Debate

In Latin America, discussions about freedom of expression often look upward: what governments say, what judges silence, how platforms behave. But less frequently, we ask what citizens think. How committed are we, as societies, to defending this right when it is put to the test?

Therecent report by the Future of Free Speechgives us a unique opportunity to explore that question. Based on surveys conducted in October 2024 with over 50,000 people across 33 countries—including Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, and Venezuela—the study measures public support for freedom of expression in its many forms, from abstract rejection of censorship to tolerance of uncomfortable, offensive, or politically sensitive statements.

At CELE, we reviewed the results with two guiding questions in mind: what does the study reveal about Latin America, and why should it matter to us?

Strong Support… with Nuance

The first news: the region shows high levels of overall support for freedom of expression. Chile (81,3%), Venezuela (81,8%), Argentina (78,97%), Mexico (76%) and Brazil (70,3%) all rank above the global average on the Future of Free Speech Index, an indicator that combines responses about rejection of censorship and tolerance toward critical or offensive statements.

However, like any composite index, this one also conceals nuances. In several countries, for example, the willingness to accept criticism of the government coexists with a strong rejection of speech that offends national symbols or minority groups. In other words: freedom of expression is valued, but not in all its forms.

The index places Argentina among the countries with the highest overall support for freedom of expression. This ranks it above consolidated democracies such as Germany and Australia and highlights a key idea that deserves close attention: in our region, the social demand for freedom of expression appears to be stronger than the institutional guarantees in place to protect it.

Nonetheless, the picture becomes more complex when the report breaks down the data. For instance, only 23% of those surveyed in Argentina approve of artificial intelligence generating offensive content about minorities. This is a low level of tolerance—and not unique to the country—that reflects a growing tension: the one between fear of AI misuse and the defense of the right to express oneself, even at the risk of causing discomfort.

Who Should Regulate AI?

One of the most novel contributions of the report is its inclusion of questions about the use of generative AI tools to produce sensitive content. In all countries across the region, the majority of respondents are skeptical of this type of use. The creation of deepfakes involving political figures, in particular, sparks strong rejection.

In response, the most favored option in countries such as Argentina, Mexico or Brazil is dual regulation, a kind of balance: regulating AI, yes, but through a shared effort between the state and technology companies. The case of Mexico stands out, where 46% of respondents chose this alternative. The level of distrust toward both actors individually appears to be strong enough to generate a preference for a mixed solution, though much remains to be discussed about how this “co-regulation” would take shape in practice.

What If the Information Is Sensitive?

Another relevant finding: in Latin America, there is a relatively high tolerance for publishing "sensitive" information—for example, on issues related to national security or content that could impact economic stability. In Chile, Argentina, and Mexico, a majority of respondents believe that media outlets should be able to publish this type of content.

This is especially significant in contexts where governments often invoke reasons of "security" or "stability" to justify restrictions on access to public information. The fact that citizens do not automatically endorse these narratives, as the report's findings would suggest, is a sign of democratic maturity or a healthy level of skepticism worth highlighting.

In Argentina (78,68%), Brazil (73,27%), Chile (89,9%), Mexico (76,52%), and Venezuela (76,3%), large majorities believe that sensitive economic information should not be restricted. When it comes to the right to publish on national security issues, the numbers are similarly striking: it is supported by 68,81% of Argentines, 71,84% of Brazilians, 76,54% of Chileans, 72,95% of Mexicans, and 73,58% of Venezuelans surveyed.

Across the board, we observe substantial levels of tolerance, especially considering these are countries with recurrent instability where the fear of "destabilization" often operates as an argument for censorship or oversurveillance.

What Do These Findings Mean for Latin America?

The report does not offer simple answers, but it does force us to think with greater precision. Latin American societies seem willing to defend freedom of expression as a principle, but not without conditions. Offensive speech and the new challenges posed by artificial intelligence strain that commitment, and the willingness to accept restrictions "for the common good" remains strong.

For those of us who work to protect the right to free expression, these nuances matter. Because it is not enough to denounce regressive laws or state pressure, we must also understand the values, fears, and tolerance thresholds that circulate in public opinion.

Freedom of expression cannot be sustained by legal frameworks alone. It also requires a civic culture that values ​​it, even when it becomes uncomfortable. The findings of the report The Future of Free Speech remind us that this culture is contested—and that it is worth continuing to ask who defends it and under what conditions.