Nootebook.fix. the judges of the Supreme Court decided regarding if the media law is constitutional or not. They cannot decide if this is good or wrong because in that case, they were going to replace the Congress.
So, Argentina has added to its constitution some Human Right International Treaties like this one:
Article 13 - American Convention on Human Rights
3. The right of exp<b></b>ression may not be restricted by indirect methods or means, such as the abuse of government or private controls over newsprint, radio broadcasting frequencies, or equipment used in the dissemination of information, or by any other means tending to impede the communication and circulation of ideas and opinions.
Some years ago I made a class action for discrimination at the Tango Contest organized by Macri. Only Telam (official media agency) published the news but nobody used it (Telam is like Routers but local, its a source for newspapers).
Many small newspapers from the countryside published the news.
Clarin didn t publish the scandal because they were protecting Macri and attacking the government. Sorry, this is not free media.
Only after the WSJ published the story, La Nacion and pagina 12 published it.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303661904576456210544473444
Macri had to change the law to cover the scandal. I realized that the independent media is very small. The official one almost doesn[t exist> El Argentino newspaper and what else? nothing. Because it was perfect for whoever wanted to attack Macri but it was clear thet there were no big media that were impartial.
Sorry, but in a country were the President was elected by 53% of the votes, there is a lot of people who want to listen something different than hate against the government,
As I said, the law is clearly constitutional. If the solutions provided can be better, well, the Congress voted it after a long debate, so, that's the law.
However, the Supreme Court also said that Clarin has to be compensated for those licenses that is going to lose.