receive any information whatsoever and to have access to the thoughts expressed by others.99 95. Furthermore, the Court reiterates that: the different regional systems for the protection of human rights and the universal system agree on the essential role played by freedom of expression in the consolidation and dynamics of a democratic society. Without effective freedom of expression, exercised in all its forms, democracy is enervated, pluralism and tolerance start to deteriorate, the mechanisms for control and complaint by the individual become ineffectual and, above all, a fertile ground is created for authoritarian systems to take root in society.100 96. With regard to the first dimension of the right to freedom of expression, the Court has indicated that this “is not exhausted in the theoretical recognition of the right to speak or write, but also includes, inseparably, the right to use any appropriate method to disseminate thought and allow it to reach the greatest number of persons.”101 Thus, the expression and dissemination of thought and information are indivisible, so that a restriction of the possibilities of dissemination represents directly, and to the same extent, a limit to the right to free expression.102 97. Regarding the second dimension of the right to freedom of expression that is, the social element, it is necessary to indicate that freedom of expression is a way of exchanging ideas and information between persons; it includes the right to try and communicate one’s point of view to others, but it also implies everyone’s right to know opinions, reports and news. For the ordinary citizen, the knowledge of other people’s opinions and information is as important as the right to impart their own.103 98. The American Convention guarantees this right to every individual, irrespective of any other consideration; therefore, such guarantee should not be limited to a given profession or group of individuals. Freedom of expression is an essential element of the freedom of the press, although these are not synonymous and exercise of the first does not condition the exercise of the second.104 99. Given the importance of freedom of expression in a democratic society, the State must not only minimize restrictions on the dissemination of information, but must also balance, to the greatest extent possible, the participation in the public debate of different types of information, fostering informative pluralism. Consequently, equity must regulate the flow of information.105 Cf. Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism (Arts. 13 and 29, American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-5/85 of November 13, 1985. Series A, No. 5, para. 30; and Case of Carvajal et al. v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 13, 2018, Series C, No. 352, para. 172. 100 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica, Judgment of July 2, 2004, Series C, No. 107, para. 116. 101 Cf. Case of “The Last Temptation of Christ” (Olmedo Bustos et al.) v. Chile, Judgment of February 5, 2001, Series C, No. 73, para. 65; Case of Carvajal et al. v. Colombia, para. 172. 102 Cf. Case of “The Last Temptation of Christ” (Olmedo Bustos et al.) v. Chile, para. 65; Case of Carvajal et al. v. Colombia, para. 172. 103 Cf. Case of “The Last Temptation of Christ”, para. 66; Cf. Case of Carvajal et al., para. 172. 104 Cf. Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panama, para. 114. 105 The Court has stated that “it is indispensable to ensure […] the plurality of means of communication, the barring of all monopolies thereof, in whatever form”. Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism, para. 34. See also, mutatis mutandi Case Kimel v. Argentina, para. 57. 99 20