Media laws at Dominican Republic
The Dominican Republic has a legal framework that, in principle, safeguards freedom of expression and the press. However, the practical application and recent legislative efforts have generated debate and some concerns.
Constitutional Basis
Constitution of the Dominican Republic (Article 49): The constitution explicitly guarantees freedom of expression, stating that "every person has the right to freely express their thoughts, ideas and opinions, through any means, without prior censorship." This right is conditioned on not assaulting the dignity or morality of others.
American Convention on Human Rights (Article 13): As a signatory to the American Convention, the Dominican Republic is also bound by its provisions on freedom of thought and expression, which prohibit prior censorship and indirect restrictions.
Key Laws and Proposed Changes
Traditionally, the main law governing media was:
Law No. 6132 on the Expression and Dissemination of Thought (1962): This law has been the cornerstone of media regulation for decades. However, it is widely considered outdated given technological advancements and the rise of digital platforms.
Recent Legislative Debates and Proposals (as of July 2025):
There is an ongoing legislative process to replace Law 6132 with a new comprehensive law on freedom of expression. This proposed legislation, the Organic Law on Freedom of Expression and Audiovisual Media, has been a significant point of discussion:
Rationale for New Law: Proponents argue that the new law is necessary to regulate digital platforms, ensure compliance with human rights, and address issues relevant to the modern media landscape. It seeks to prevent violence and promote the well-being of children and adolescents.
Positive Aspects (cited by some proponents):
Reaffirmation of freedom of expression without prior censorship.
Protection of the right to access information.
Regulation of digital platforms with transparency and respect for human rights, including requiring platforms to inform users of restrictions and allow appeals.
Decriminalization of defamation and libel in cases of public interest or involving public officials (though these offenses could still be punishable under other laws).
Establishment of rights like correction of publications and the right to reply.
Concerns and Criticisms (raised by journalists and civil society):
Potential for Censorship: Critics fear the proposed law could lead to government censorship, particularly through the establishment of a new independent regulator (INACOM - National Institute of Audiovisual Communication) that some worry could overreach its authority.
Vague Language: Some provisions, like Article 9 giving media the right to preserve "truthful" information, are criticized for being subjective and open to interpretation.
Increased Regulation of Digital Platforms: While some see this as necessary, others fear it could stifle free expression online.
Lack of Necessity for a New Law: Some argue that the existing 1962 law simply needs modification to incorporate social media and digital aspects, rather than a complete overhaul.
"Gag Law" Concerns: Previous attempts at media legislation (e.g., a 2022 bill by Melania Salvador) were dubbed "Gag Laws" due to concerns about regulating privacy, honor, and self-image in ways that could restrict journalistic inquiry.
National Intelligence Directorate (DNI) Law (Law No. 1-24, January 2024):
This law has also sparked significant concern among media organizations and human rights groups:
Mandatory Information Provision (Article 11 and 26): It mandates that all state agencies, private institutions, and individuals (including journalists, lawyers, and doctors) must provide the DNI with any requested information related to national security, regardless of privacy protections. Failure to comply can result in prison sentences.
Threat to Journalistic Secrecy: Critics argue this law severely jeopardizes journalistic professional secrecy and the confidentiality of sources, as it compels disclosure of information.
Potential for Surveillance: Concerns have been raised about the law potentially legitimizing phone tapping and electronic surveillance against political opponents and journalists.
Regulatory Bodies
Dominican Institute of Telecommunications (INDOTEL): This is the primary regulatory body for telecommunications in the Dominican Republic. It handles licensing for broadcasting, frequency allocation, and overseeing the development of the telecommunications market. INDOTEL is also reportedly involved in the proposed reforms to the telecommunications law, given the need to modernize it.
Proposed INACOM: The proposed Organic Law on Freedom of Expression and Audiovisual Media aims to establish INACOM as an autonomous state body responsible for regulating and supervising audiovisual communication services, digital platforms, cinema, and public performances.
Other Relevant Aspects
Concentrated Media Ownership: While there is a broad array of media outlets, ownership of private media is highly concentrated.
Transparency of Public Funding: Concerns have been raised about the lack of transparency in public funding of media.
Journalists' Access: Some journalists have reported increasingly limited access to government officials and events, and increased aggression from security details during press conferences.
In conclusion, while the Dominican Republic's constitution enshrines freedom of expression, its media laws are currently undergoing significant changes. The aim to modernize legislation for the digital age is generally welcomed, but the specific provisions of the proposed new freedom of expression law and the recently enacted DNI law have generated considerable debate and concern regarding their potential impact on journalistic independence, privacy, and the overall landscape of media freedom in the country.
RELATED Blog
0 comments