That's a good one... maybe you don't remember what the "left-wing leader" did in the '70s, or '90s, or what happened up until 2003.
Or maybe you are reading 6,7,8's account of history, very well written in Newspeak.
The 125 was treated in the Congress because of public rejection. It doesn't have to do with free speech but the grandparent asked for examples of attack on private property.
The pension funds were the response to the failure on the 125. I'm not saying she did it by herself, but we are talking about a government, it was the government project.
Football TV contract was violated and instead of defending the private property, the government supported one side when at least should have been neutral. You would say this is proof of nothing but I just heard Arujo and J.Ricardo praise Cristina's "inquietud para que todos puedan ver todos los partidos".
As for the "long list", that's a subjective point and I respect your opinion.
The reasons given by the authors of a law don't make the law fulfill that objective. In the case of the law you mention, I'd believe it was to protect free speech if they'd included provisions to distribute the official funds between every media outlet, otherwise I'd say it's another way to support only those that think like the current government and stagnate every dissenting opinion.
What does his admission have to do with anything? The resolution was an attack on private property no matter what, read your constitution.
You are right, there is no proof, the news stands in the "Mercado Central" where shut down because of what?
There were other points in my response, are you intentionally ignoring them?
Can I mention the 125 resolution, pension funds, football TV contracts, disproportionate propaganda funds spent on ridiculous newspapers, the prohibition to sell Clarin in some newstands, the public attack on journalists?