And have you already asked the audiences?

The initiative to issue the new Telecommunications and Broadcasting Law, currently under review by the Senate, reintroduced the so-called audience rights originally incorporated into the 2014 Federal Telecommunications and Broadcasting Law. I am referring to that catalog of restrictions on programming broadcast through broadcasting services, which establishes that audiovisual content must reflect the pluralism of the nation, include different genres that reflect the expression of diversity, differentiate information from the opinion of the person presenting it, provide elements to distinguish advertising from content and respect schedules, as well as prohibit all discrimination, among others.

These cutting-edge rights have gained significant momentum, particularly with the momentum of progressive currents of thought and the push of Woke ideology, which call for changes in social culture to promote inclusion and extend the reach of fundamental rights. It is these kinds of groups that we owe, for example, the highly controversial changes Disney has made in the production of its films, altering the physical appearance of its iconic characters in an attempt to break with hegemonic beauty standards, such as slim body shapes or light skin.

At the fifth panel discussion held in the Senate, some of the main proponents of audience rights were present. Not satisfied with the initiative's inclusion in the 2014 law, they demanded that its scope be extended even further, as they believe the initiative's scope is insufficient.

The irony that always accompanies these groups is that audiences are, by their very definition, diverse. No person or association can claim to be a legitimate representative of audiences in the abstract, as each television or radio listener has different tastes and interests. There will be audiences that like to watch national content, with Mexican actors and themes, while others prefer to access foreign productions, and there will even be those who intentionally choose to avoid national programming. While one person may choose content that includes characters outside of stereotypes, another may continue to seek out actors who meet hegemonic standards of beauty. They are all audiences; they have the right to seek out content that aligns with their tastes and cannot be forced to consume content that doesn't interest them.

Thus, no advocate for audience rights can assume they know or represent the interests of all audiences, or worse, that they know them even better than the television or radio listener themselves. In fact, the more the expansion of the catalog of audience rights is demanded, the more the freedom that audiences themselves should have to choose the content they prefer will be limited.

According to the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (jurisprudence registered 2019357), the human right to the free development of personality implies that people have freedom of action, allowing them to engage in any activity they consider necessary for the development of their personality. From an internal perspective, this right protects an individual's "sphere of privacy" against external incursions that limit the ability to make certain decisions through which personal autonomy is exercised. Over-regulation of audience rights, such as that currently envisaged in the proposed new law, would violate the right to the free development of personality, as it would prevent people from freely choosing the audiovisual content of their choice.