FOPEA and the Naumann Foundation are organizing a progressive farce with Carlos Maqueda

With an academic tone and the appearance of a "plural debate," Friedrich Naumann Foundation Argentina and FOPEA (Argentine Journalism Forum) are launching an event titled "What do we understand by freedom?" Far from being a genuine space to defend freedom of expression, the gathering represents yet another attempt by institutional progressivism to co-opt the meaning of the word freedom and strip it of substance.

However, the most serious issue is not the hypocritical title or the sugarcoated rhetoric, but rather the individuals involved. Among them is former Supreme Court judge Carlos Maqueda, a living example of how Argentina's judiciary was captured by political power for decades.

Maqueda: a career in service of those in power

Carlos Maqueda was part of the Kirchnerist "renewal" of the Supreme Court. He joined in 2002 thanks to a political agreement, without any prior judicial career or competitive examination to legitimize him. His appointment was the result of a classic move by old Peronism: placing a loyal friend in the highest court to guarantee obedience. Maqueda delivered. During the darkest years of Kirchnerism, while the judiciary was used to persecute opponents, cover up corruption scandals, and guarantee impunity, he remained silent.

He never denounced the executive branch's encroachment on judges. He never said a word when the ruling party used the AFIP to pressure businesspeople, when independent journalists were harassed, or when cases were fabricated to smear political adversaries. He was at the center of judicial power and did nothing. Not a single substantive ruling, nor a dissent worthy of remembrance. His role was that of the institutional "usher": arranging rulings, timing, and silences so as not to disturb those in charge.

He was also one of the staunchest opponents of transparency in the system. Maqueda always opposed the publication of Supreme Court judges' sworn statements. What did he have to hide? Perhaps nepotism: he placed relatives and close associates in judicial positions without competitive examinations, as if the judiciary were a personal employment agency.

Today, reinvented as an "intellectual" figurehead, he is willing to lead an event that purports to give lessons on freedom, truth, and journalism. It is an insult to those who fight every day against censorship, ideological persecution, and the media shielding of the elite.

FOPEA: silence in the face of censorship, scandals, and complicity

FOPEA, meanwhile, is not an innocent organization. It presents itself as a defender of independent journalism, but in practice it has functioned as a tool of the progressive establishment. While media outlets were going bankrupt, critical voices were being silenced, and journalists were being doxxed on social media, FOPEA replied with lukewarm statements—if it replied at all. Its defense of "freedom of expression" is deeply selective: it only matters when the speaker repeats its ideological dogmas.

Instead of denouncing censorship, FOPEA chose to become the guardian of the official narrative. It talks about "hate speech," "bots," and "digital manipulation" as if those were the real threats to freedom. Meanwhile, it never denounced how the state operated against dissenting media, used public agencies to fund activist outlets, or orchestrated smear campaigns against journalists who deviated from the script.

This is the same FOPEA that remained silent in the face of the K Media Law, that said nothing when state agencies were created to control the flow of information, that applauded the "fake news observatories" which in practice functioned as organs of selective censorship.

Today it allies itself with an international foundation to disguise as pluralism what is nothing more than an ideological rebranding operation. A facelift disguised as a debate.

Friedrich Naumann: from national liberalism to postmodern globalism

What about the Naumann Foundation? It was born bearing the name of a German liberal who believed in the power of the nation, economic federalism, and individual freedom as the engine of progress. Friedrich Naumann understood that liberalism could not be divorced from cultural roots and the people. However, today his name is used by European bureaucrats who fund NGOs in southern countries to impose their agendas, disguised as democratic modernity.

This Naumann Foundation in Argentina represents neither its founder's legacy nor the values of classical liberalism. It represents ideological submission to the progressivism of Brussels. It funds events, scholarships, and seminars that serve to promote an idea of "responsible freedom", that is, limited, supervised, and compatible with the interests of the globalist elite.

The current Naumann doesn't defend freedom of expression. It defends a system where speaking freely is only possible if you repeat the authorized narratives. Where censorship is disguised as "moderation" and pluralism is reduced to panels where everyone thinks alike.

An immoral farce that insults intelligence

This event is not a debate; it is a farce. It is not a celebration of freedom; it is a burial. They use the dead prestige of a useless former judge like Maqueda, the complicity of a decadent organization like FOPEA, and the money of a foreign foundation colonized by the soft thinking of political correctness, to tell Argentines what we can and can't say.

They disguise themselves as defenders of truth, when they are complicit in silence. They present themselves as liberals, when they are operators of European progressivism. They talk endlessly about democracy, but only if citizens vote, think, and express themselves as they wish.

To Naumann Foundation and FOPEA we say this: do not try to give us lessons on freedom if you have never stood up for it. Do not talk to us about truth if you remained silent for years in the face of official lies. Do not talk to us about journalism if you used journalism as a shield for political interests and as a weapon of covert censorship.

If you truly want to understand what freedom is, start by canceling the event and apologizing. If not, at least have the decency not to use Naumann's name to justify single-minded thinking.