Vladimir Gessen is the editor of Informe21.com and president of the digital media association Bloque de Prensa Digital. A version of this article in Spanish appeared on Informe21.

It cannot be that the party of Abraham Lincoln, which always has defended freedom of expression as one of the fundamental principles of the U.S. Constitution, wants to boycott a media outlet for merely stating facts, without even expressing opinion. We are talking about a party that has defended freedom in the world, not about the Communist Party of Stalin. It is the party of Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, who criticizes President Hugo Chávez for doing in Venezuela the same as her party is currently doing in the United States.

This boycott is a very disappointing signal to free forces throughout the hemisphere and a serious mistake that can throw away the aspirations of the young and promising American political leader of Hispanic origin, Marco Rubio, as a possible candidate first to the vice presidency and then to the presidency. His first major national and international news story in the public opinion cannot be the promotion of a boycott against freedom of expression. Much less giving the appearance of starting a boycott against journalists and a media outlet. Nothing more akin to an authoritarian president of Latin America….

Marco Rubio must rectify and the Republican Party must acknowledge its mistake. Its fundamental mission is to defend freedom of expression and the rights of citizens enshrined in the Constitution. The version of the facts that Informe21.com knows is as follows:

Like any large media company, the Univision news department airs stories that stir controversy. Univision News recently created an Investigative Unit led by veteran journalist Gerardo Reyes, who spent 22 years at the Miami Herald and is a recipient of both the Pulitzer Prize and the Maria Moors Cabot award for excellence in journalism. Reyes and his team discovered evidence that Senator Marco Rubio’s brother-in-law had been convicted of drug trafficking. Senator Rubio has been touted as a possible vice presidential nominee and the network wanted to have the senator’s reaction on how this event impacted his life and shaped his current political views.

Reyes contacted Rubio’s family in an attempt to glean more information on the conviction. Rubio’s staff then sent a letter to Univision’s C.E.O. Randy Falco stating that pursuing the story about the senator’s relatives was “outrageous” because they are private citizens. The letter went on to ask that Reyes abandon the “intrusive investigation into the senator’s family”. Falco, a veteran in media having spent over 35 years at NBC, quickly turned the matter over to Isaac Lee, Univision’s President of News. Lee then scheduled a conference call with Alex Burgos, the senator’s press secretary, and Todd Harris, a political operative. Gerardo Reyes, Univision News Vice President Daniel Coronell, Managing News Director Maria Henao, Lee and two lawyers from Univision’s legal department represented Univision in the conference call.

On July 8th, the day after the conference call, Mr. Burgos sent a letter to Mr. Lee thanking him for hosting the conference call, but saying that they were disappointed with the Network’s editorial policy. They indicated that as long as Univision continued to have those editorial standards it would be impossible to have any sort of relationship with the network.

Reyes’ story aired on July 11th.

Almost three months later, on 2 October, The Miami Herald published an article in which the senator’s staffers accused Univision of offering them a “quid pro quo”, claiming that Lee had presented them with the option of having Senator Rubio appear on a show in exchange for Univision “killing” the story. The entire article was based on notes taken by Burgos during the conference call, which were purportedly corroborated by anonymous Univision sources “with knowledge of the conference call.”

On 3 October, Congressman David Rivera (R-FL) and two other Florida state representatives sent a letter to Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee, accusing Univision of attempted extortion against Senator Rubio. The letter demanded that all of the Republican presidential candidates boycott the upcoming Univision primary debate (a debate that was never announced).

Furthermore, Congressman Rivera threatened that if the Republican presidential hopefuls ignored his request, he would “inform Hispanic voters, particularly Cuban-American voters,” as to which presidential candidates chose to disregard his concerns.

For Representative Rivera, the only acceptable solution was for Univision to offer a public apology to Senator Rubio and to call on Isaac Lee to resign. Consequently, six of the Republican nominees have decided to boycott the unannounced Univision debate.

And who is David Rivera? We will inform you in a next instalment.

Univision has been fully supportive of its news department at all times during this matter. Univision has repeatedly stated that the accusations of Senator Rubio’s staff are false and the network continues to deny their requests for an apology and for Lee’s resignation.

The truth is that…

-No one has refuted, or even addressed the facts contained within Univision’s original report.

-Univision had four journalists and two lawyers on the conference call with the senator’s staff who all categorically deny the allegations

-One day after the conference call, Burgos sent Univision a letter stating his problems with Univision’s “news policy,” without once mentioning any “quid pro quo” offer or any alleged extortion attempt against the senator.

This group of powerful politicians has decided to boycott a major news network that millions of Latinos rely on to stay informed on a range of issues; chief among them, politics. And at the end of the day, this comes down to the fact that, in an attempt to protect one of its own, these politicians have not only launched a baseless attack on the integrity of Univision and Lee, but have also come dangerously close to censoring Univision’s right to free speech.

The views expressed are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of the International Press Institute (IPI).