Judgment against Televisa challenged: Editorial Random asserts ongoing legal battle
In an unusual turn of events, Penguin Random House has filed an amparo against a ruling that compels the publishing house to grant Televisa the right of reply in Anabel Hernández's book, "Las señoras del narco. Amar en el infierno."
The ruling, made by a secretary acting provisionally as a magistrate in the absence of the titular, who was on leave for a judicial election, is not final. The irregularities in the tribunal's ruling stem from the case being handled by a court that is not specialized in the relevant matter.
Penguin Random House argues that the request by Televisa to insert a right of reply within a published book is procedurally and substantively inappropriate. The publishing house contends that it is not a periodic mass media outlet but a book publisher, while Televisa is a mass media company capable of disseminating its opinions through its own platforms.
The controversy contradicts the concept of freedom of expression as defined by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Freedom of expression protects the editorial independence and creative freedom of authors and publishers, which should not be infringed by forced publication of responses demanded by parties involved in litigation.
The SCJN and Inter-American Court have established that any limitation to freedom of expression must comply with strict criteria and not undermine autonomy or impose undue burdens on publishers. Forcing insertion of a right of reply inside a book can be seen as a form of censorship or interference with the content and editorial decisions, which runs counter to the established principles of free speech and press freedom upheld by these courts.
Penguin Random House reaffirms its commitment to freedom of expression, cultural diversity, and the strict respect for authors' rights. The publishing house adheres to the norm and judicial processes of each country in which it operates.
In a statement, Penguin Random House Grupo Editorial refused the request, stating that it is not appropriate for a publishing house to serve as a means for a mass communication medium to express its opinion. The company alleges that the information disseminated by the television company against it presents a partial version of the litigation.
The appeal ruling in favor of Televisa was obtained in a court in Baja California Sur, a state different from the original. Not all the defenses made by Random House were analyzed in the ruling, and the ruling does not take into account the parameters of freedom of expression defined by the SCJN and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.
Mexico is changing, and Random House believes that the irregularities in this case are exceptions, not the rule. The company has initiated a civil lawsuit to demand its right of reply, further highlighting the complexity of the issue at hand.
[1] Sources: [Link 1], [Link 2], [Link 3] (optional)
Read also:
- Today's most impactful photographic moments
- Support for Eric Adams in The Post's Letters to the Editor on August 13, 2025
- Roosting Shark and Rambunctious Red Squirrels: Unconventional House Rental in Yorkshire Involving Aquatic Marvel, Squirrely Mayhem, and Mystical Planning Regulations
- Legal Dispute Dismissed with Humor: Supreme Court Laughs off Another Civil Matter Mislabeled as Criminal Prosecution
