FREEDOM OF THE MEDIA IN A COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE

J oan Barat Mir

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bs3YQloqM8)

Freedom of Expression:
The Freedom of Speech and Expression, although believed a universal human right, does not
have the same meaning everywhere. Within the umbrella right, there is considerable difference
from nation to nation in the scope of the right, the limits placed upon it and the very notion of the
right. This is visible in the very manner in which the right is protected internationally.
The Freedom of Speech and Expression is often believed to belong exclusively to the
western liberal tradition, having germinated in the late 1800s with the French Revolution, and
the genesis of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen. It is, however, safe to say
that the right has now achieved a far more universal status. The right has been incorporated into
instruments like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, both instruments that have been acceded to by nations
far outside western traditions.
Considerable leeway is visible in the way these instruments protect the Freedom of
Speech and Expression. They are often worded in a vague and broad manner, and allow for
considerable variation in interpretation. They may hence be adapted to differing legal traditions.
Most instruments, for instance, while providing for the protection of the right, allow nations to
place complementary duties and restrictions something which may be interpreted differently in
different jurisdictions.
The European Court of Human Rights amply exemplifies this approach. It has evolved
the margin of appreciation doctrine, which allows countries to interpret the European
Convention on Human Rights broadly. The Court often absolves itself from looking into the
restrictions a member nation has placed upon the Freedom of Speech and Expression, as long as
the same appears rational and necessary. This allows countries to place numerous restrictions,
such as compulsory content in a particular language in order for its preservation, without being in
breach of a convention.

Journalistic Freedoms
Journalistic freedoms are of a nature far removed from the general freedom of speech, although
both are placed under the broad umbrella of the freedom of speech and expression. While the
former is a freedom to disseminate information - or facts, the latter is a right to distribute ideas,
opinions or thoughts largely ones own creations. The protections afforded to them hence vary
significantly in terms of limits, requirements and scope.
The right to information is an active right; it is not only a general right to be informed of
things of every nature, but also a guarantee that persons shall be protected in their attempts to
disseminate it. This is the domain of the freedom of the press. In many jurisdictions, the press is
given certain protections not afforded to all such as the right to not reveal ones sources. On the
other hand, it also has heightened responsibilities, such as the need to be accurate, especially
when there is the question of something like defamation at hand.
The rights and duties afforded to journalists are part of an evolving process, with many
questions remaining unanswered. The question of who can be termed a journalist is enormously
complicated in todays era. People who may not traditionally be considered professional
journalists may nonetheless play a major role in the dissemination of information through
twitter, blogs and the like. It is unclear what protections we afford such persons, as are the duties
that ought to be placed on them.

Passive Right to Information
The traditional liberal view of the freedom of speech and expression sees the passive right of
information as one where the government does not impede in the dissemination of information.
There do, however, exist alternate views on such a right. There are at least three views that
instead place a further positive obligation on the state. These include:
1. Public institutions play an important part in the dissemination. Through measures like the
Right to Information Act, citizens have a right to demand information from public
institutions, which places an active duty on the State.
2. In Europe, there is a tradition of public service broadcasting, where the citizens have a
right to receive public service broadcasts.
3. The state might have the duty to remove undemocratic fetters placed on the access of
information by private entities, such as cable companies, search engine services etc.
Restrictions are often placed on active obligations in the interests of security, official secrets or
national interests, and states usually have the discretion of placing appropriate standards to that
effect. The United Kingdom, for instance, can place penalties on people that violate national
interest by revealing information. In the context of episodes like Wikileaks, however, a question
arises as to whether one can place liability on persons who reveal such information from outside
the jurisdiction of a state. There is perhaps a need to come up with an international understanding
for such cases, perhaps by articulating a standard of international public interest.