78 “The right of expression may not be restricted by indirect methods or means, such as the abuse of government or private controls over newsprint, radio broadcasting frequencies, or equipment used in the dissemination of information, or by any other means tending to impede the communication and circulation of ideas and opinions.” 269. Similarly, addressing the scope of the restrictions on human rights, Article 30 of the Convention states that such restrictions “may not be applied except in accordance with laws enacted for reasons of general interest and in accordance with the purpose for which such restrictions have been established.” (Italics added). 270. The indirect methods of restricting freedom of expression are veiled as legitimate measures and are advanced to accomplish a purpose other than the one that the law authorizes, such as restricting individuals’ exercise of freedom of expression. When this happens, it is a violation of Article 13(3) of the Convention. As the Inter-American Court has held, “any governmental action that involves a restriction of the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas to a greater extent or by means other than those authorized by the Convention, would also be contrary to it.”320 271. The Court has condemned compulsory membership in an association prescribed by law for the practice of journalism321 and the arbitrary use of the State’s regulatory authority to bring actions against media executives calculated to intimidate them or to revoke a media owner’s citizenship because of the editorial leaning of the programs his media outlet broadcasts.322 It has also called into question statements by public officials when, given the context, they may be forms of direct or indirect interference or seek to exert restrictive pressures on the rights of those who seek to contribute to the public discourse by expressing and circulating their thoughts and ideas.323 The Court has also held that another indirect restriction would be a disproportionate or discriminatory demand requiring accreditations or authorizations for the written media to participate in official events.324 272. In the same vein, the IACHR has explained that a single government act may simultaneously be a limitation on freedom of expression in violation of the requirements of Article 13.2 of the American Convention, as well as an indirect or subtle means of restricting freedom of expression. For example, the imposition of criminal penalties for certain expressions that are contrary to the interests of the government—which is a direct limitation to this freedom according to Article 13 insofar as it is unnecessary and disproportionate—is also an indirect limitation of this right; its “chilling” and 320 I/A Court H.R. 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, paragraph 55. 321 I/A Court H.R. 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, paragraph 76. 322 I/A Court H.R. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74, paragraphs 162 y 163. 323 I/A Court H.R. Case of Ríos et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 194, paragraph 139; I/A Court H.R., Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 195, paragraph 151. 324 I/A Court H.R. Case of Ríos et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 194, paragraph 346; I/A Court H.R., Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 195, paragraph 375.