The Libertarian Paradox: Free Speech and SLAPP Suits in Milei’s Argentina

Originally published in English on The Bedrock Principle

President Javier Milei came to power promising a radical dismantling of state coercion and championing absolute individual liberty. However, his administration has unleashed a wave of judicial harassment and institutional hostility against the press, highlighting inherent contradictions in his political agenda.

In recent years—and accelerated by the post-pandemic landscape—democratic societies have experienced what some define as an epistemic crisis: a collapse not only of public trust but also of the collective mechanisms used to validate truth and authority. In Argentina, this crisis has taken a radical turn. For decades, traditional political debates oscillated between a minimal, efficient, and managerial state and a robust, interventionist, and redistributive one. The current government, however, has introduced a narrative that attacks the very legitimacy of the state, branding it a criminal organization.

This discourse constructs an all-encompassing enemy: “the caste,” a derogatory term that Milei repeatedly uses to lash out at a supposed class of politicians, union leaders, businesspeople, and journalists who live a privileged life at the expense of the efforts of ordinary Argentines and workers. 

Within this framework, any critical analysis or investigative journalism piece is dismissed a priori as a functional defense of the ruling class’s corruption. Paradoxically, although the official rhetoric positions itself as strictly anti-statist, the executive branch has repeatedly resorted to the punitive apparatus of the state—specifically, criminal defamation lawsuits—to censor and intimidate dissenting voices.

The Rise of Judicial Harassment: SLAPP Suits at the Highest Level

The most striking manifestation of this paradox is the frequent use of criminal defamation and slander lawsuits personally filed by President Milei against prominent journalists. These legal actions have targeted prominent editorial figures, such as Carlos Pagni (La Nación); investigative journalists, such as Ari Lijalad (El Destape); and political commentators, such as Julia Mengolini (Futurock), whose case led CELE to file an amicus curiae brief before the Federal Criminal Cassation Court.

These actions fit perfectly within the international definition of “strategic lawsuits against public participation” (SLAPP). Far from seeking genuine legal redress, these lawsuits exploit the judicial system to exert severe economic, emotional, and professional pressure on journalists or others willing to participate in public debate. 

The underlying objective is to create a profound deterrent effect throughout the media ecosystem, making it clear that critical coverage of the executive branch entails prohibitive personal costs.

The president’s lawsuits were directed against journalists who were conducting investigative reporting or editorial analysis on matters of great public interest. These ranged from critical assessments of government policies to pointing out alleged similarities between the rhetoric of Milei’s party and that of the Nazi party, as well as investigations into the innermost circle of the ruling party. One analysis described the relationship between the president and his sister as incestuous. 

Milei considered all these publications to be extremely offensive and a direct attack on his honor, so he decided to file criminal complaints for defamation. Fortunately, the Argentine judiciary, for the most part, has resisted this wave. Federal judges, applying constitutional principles, recently dismissed the criminal complaints against Pagni and Lijalad. The courts reaffirmed that editorial analysis, historical comparisons, and criticism of presidential decisions are fully protected by freedom of expression in a democratic society. 

In some cases, the judiciary ordered the president to pay the legal costs of the proceedings, which highlights the classic structure of a SLAPP strategy, designed not to win on the merits of the case, but to intimidate and wear down independent voices. To counter Milei’s strategy in the Lijalad case, the Buenos Aires Press Workers’ Union (SiPreBa) republished the exact same article that had prompted the criminal defamation lawsuit and opened it up for signatures. The republished article garnered more than 600 signatures from other journalists.

Milei’s reaction to these setbacks has generally been to redouble his systematic campaign to discredit the press, which includes insults and insisting on his X account that “we don’t hate journalists enough” (“we don’t hate journalists enough,” or its acronym #NOLSALP, which his followers have adopted as a hashtag in a collective campaign to question the integrity of any journalist who dares to criticize the government). More recently, he has repeatedly stated, both in X posts and in public appearances, that “[95% of journalists are criminals]”(https://www.clarin.com/politica/javier-milei-lanzo-descalificacion-prensa-95-periodistas-delincuentes_0_h3IcdpyMUR.html)”.

International Legal Standards: Public Interest and Public Officials

A president’s use of criminal law against journalists violates fundamental international human rights standards, specifically Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Landmark rulings by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights—such as Kimel v. Argentina, Álvarez Ramos v. Venezuela, and Baraona Bray v. Chile—have established a clear legal consensus:

• Enhanced presumption of protection: Expressions concerning public officials or matters of significant public interest enjoy an enhanced status of protection due to their fundamental role in fostering an informed citizenry and public accountability.
• High threshold of tolerance: Public figures, by virtue of voluntarily assuming functions of state power and having high public exposure, must demonstrate a significantly higher threshold of tolerance in the face of harsh, scathing, or even deeply offensive criticism.
• Incompatibility of criminal sanctions: The protection of a public official’s reputation must be pursued exclusively through civil remedies, the right of reply, or public clarifications. Resorting to the criminal justice system to punish political speech is inherently disproportionate and detrimental to democracy. The mere fact that high-ranking public officials initiate criminal proceedings against journalists over matters of public interest constitutes an abusive restriction on freedom of expression, regardless of the final judicial outcome.

A Systematic Campaign: The IACHR’s Assessment

These legal actions do not occur in a vacuum; they are part of an explicit “cultural battle” promoted by the State. During a recent hearing held at the University of Miami, a broad coalition of human rights and media organizations—including Amnesty International, FOPEA, CELS, SiPreBA, and CELE—presented an alarming assessment of the rapid deterioration of civic space in Argentina.

The IACHR’s Special Rapporteurship on Freedom of Expression (RELE), led by Pedro Vaca, documented a sharp increase in institutional hostility. This systematic erosion manifests itself through multiple channels:

1. Coordinated digital violence: Journalists, especially women, face massive online harassment campaigns, often orchestrated or amplified by official government accounts. For example, journalist Julia Mengolini testified before the IACHR about unprecedented campaigns that included explicit AI-generated images, death threats, and public justification of violence by the executive branch.
2. Repression in the streets: Under controversial security measures, such as the “anti-picket protocol,” nearly 300 media workers have been injured by law enforcement while covering public demonstrations. Photojournalists have, in fact, become targets in an effort to prevent independent external oversight of police actions.
3. Administrative barriers to journalism and obstacles to accessing information: The government has arbitrarily restricted press credentials for access to the Casa Rosada, citing allegations of espionage, and to enter the Congress building to cover Milei’s speech on the occasion of the inauguration of the 2026 legislative session. A presidential decree restricted the Law on Access to Public Information and abruptly shut down and took control of key public media outlets, such as the 80-year-old national news agency Télam, cutting off access to diverse information and historical archives in every province of the country.

Conclusion: In Defense of Institutional Checks and Balances

The Argentine case serves as a warning to the international community. It demonstrates how fiercely anti-state and pro-freedom rhetoric can coexist with—and act as a shield for—the systematic use of state power as a weapon against accountability and public debate. When the executive branch imposes its will through systematic stigmatization and bad-faith litigation, independent institutions and international human rights frameworks must speak out clearly to preserve the fundamental principles of democracy.