We Must Debate about the Right to
Communication with Open Mindness
Phase
one of the WSIS is approaching and one of the most expected outcomes is a
declaration about the human rights related to communication.
Within this
framework, rises the debate about the concept and contents of a right to
communication. However it worries that part of this debate is being
originated from partial visions that could lead to poor results. Thus it is
specially disturbing such a little discussion of this subject from a Latin
American perspective.
Considering
that we want to put forward some elements we hope will contribute to the
thinking and to stimulate a deeper and more comprehensive discussion. With it
we also make a call to approach the subject with open mindness and from every
possible angle.
Antecedents
Proposed for the very first time by
Jean D Arcy in late 60s within the context of, at that time, increasing debate
about a new international order in communication, the subject of a right to
communication still results as an unfinished and innovative idea facing the
traditional ways of thinking about the rights in the field of communication.
The basic approach of D Arcy is
summarized in these words: �Today it seems possible to take an step forward:
the right for mankind to the communication, as a result of our last victories
against time and space, as well as our greater awareness of the communication
phenomena. This fundamental right was implicit and underlying since the origins
in all conquered freedoms, such as the ones related to opinion, speech, press
and information. The introduction of machines, which stand in between people,
made us forget it existence. Today we realize that this right encompass all
freedoms, but, also, provides both for individuals and societies, the notions
of access and participation to the information and bilateral flow of
information, notions all necessary, as we well understand now, for the
harmonious development of man and mankind�. [1]
The question to which these words
take us is whether the current assumptions of the Human Rights about
communication are or are not the best suited to embrace communication as an
interactive, bi or multilateral process as well as dialogue one.
As an answer to this question it has
been considered the need to build a new right that in order to be formally
acknowledged will have to go through a long process.
The problem just lies in that the
right to communication is at the present time more than a well defined right,
as we have previously highlighted, a
disciplinary field from which to discuss and understand the impacts that
phenomena as digitalization and convergence of the information and
communication technologies and even mass media have produced on social life and
people in their everyday life.
In this sense the reflective task just advances and
there are reasonable doubts whether it will be on time for the World Summit on
the Information Society in order to make a Declaration on the Right to
Communication.
Facing this it is not to be
forgotten that the traditional freedom of speech and information have the
advantage of being acknowledged as fundamental rights within the main
international instruments of Human Rights as in practically any constitution
worldwide.
Some reasons
Until now much reflection to this matter has
been oriented to build a new right to communication, to some, radically
different to the freedom of speech and communication. A right that departs from
existent rights. On the same line, authors like Antonio Pascuali, for example
reflect on this subject insinuating the need for a radical divide between the
old communicational rights �the freedom- and the new right.[2]
Nonetheless his arguing, at least from the
human rights is debatable. Does not take into consideration the advances as to
how demanding are the already existent rights and their possibilities of
assigning new outreaches according to the current times. From the sense that
the quoted author gives to his thinking this is not possible. Nor it takes in
consideration the systemic character of human rights that makes them to be seen
as a whole �a comprehensive corpus-.[3]
Having said so, the new concept of
the right to communication, quite to the contrary of what some analysts think, it
should not aim to substitute the previous notions but to try to
integrate them within an integral and interactive view of the communication
as a process on meanings interchanges.
�
Some analysis based on lack of continuity and
opposition between freedom of speech and the new right to information might
lead to a wrong strategy in which sectors of civil society bet all in
favor on acknowledging the new right and overlook some other fields for action.
In this context the question is: �What shall we do until the new right becomes
admitted?�
There is no strong reason in order to avoid
seeing continuity on the rights as a result of an historic evolution of the
international standards of protection of human rights.
In spite of having emerged in previous historic
contexts: that of the western bourgeois revolutions
(XVIII Century) in the case of freedom of speech, and that of the postwar (XX
Century) in the case of the freedom of information; these concepts are
permanently reviewed due to the fact that social groups apply pressure in order
to give them new outreaches. A sample of this is the relatively recent Declaration of Principles about Freedom of
Speech of the Interamerican Commission on Human Rights, which assigns new
outreaches to this right in this case acknowledged in the Article 13 of the
American Convention on Human Rights.
Then why overlook existent rights instead of
seen them as opportunities for action. Adopting the existent rights as a way to
fight for widening the right to communication, much depends of �as Buenaventura
de Souza Santos would say- the �alternative use� that one could apply to these
concepts and to the ability of the social actors to consider new meanings from
this concepts, to describe again�wording of R. Rorty in his Irony, Contingence and Solidarity- or if
you want to rewrite and signify again categories such as "freedom of
information" or of "expression".
Thus we recommend an heterodox strategy, not of a radical negation or blocking the
legitimacy of admitted rights aiming to invent a new one, task which otherwise
proves to be illusory.
The great challenge is at the same
time to pursue fighting from admitted rights descending from the philosophical
to concrete proposals related to this right to communication. This work is
being done by many individuals, organizations and faculty interested in this
theme from several perspectives and with different intensities.
The problem also implies to articulate the
conceptual basis of the right to communication with the contents. Until now
many papers emphasize over the complexity of the subject and by means of a
philosophical rhetoric try to point out the importance of a new right to the
communication, trying out definitions of a formal kind. That not lacking in
importance must lead to a more technical definition about which are the
specific rights to the communication that still are not considered from this
interactive perspective and dialogue that the communication is all about.
Some recent papers have centered its
attention on this effort of precision, pretending to integrate elements of the
previous rights �already admitted- with the new rights on the subject of
communication. Thus for example the project of the Declaration on the Right to Communication by Cees Hamelink that proposes as key elements in this field some
already existent as rights, grouping them into rights of information; cultural;
of protection; collectives and participation.[4]
The international law is a �living process� has
said Cees Hamelink, when responding to the criticisms about his document formulated
by the organization Article 19.[5] This
statement may have in our opinion al least two implications: the first
one is that from the already admitted rights it might be possible to advance in
a task of giving wider meanings in order to allow the viewing and protection of
the field of the communication; and the second one would be to develop the
slower process of introducing some specific new rights that have to be in
harmony with the already existent.
The question is if these two implications refer
to antagonist options or one could well choose a strategy that integrates them.
We consider that the above mentioned antagonism is irrelevant to the need of
integrating the two perspectives. That is possible if a good technical effort
of defining rights is done.
Working without providing a solid definition of
the right of communication or as Hamelink has done, according to the criticism
of Article 19, proposing concrete
contents but constituting nothing but a repetition of texts over already
admitted rights, or even worse, with novel formulations but that affect ancient
rights such as freedom of speech, are all alternatives that might lead to a
serious deterioration in the status of the subject rather than an effective end
result.
As far as the criticism to the Hamelink
document we agree a great deal with the first formulated by Article 19. Hamelink in a recent
appearance has not refuted the argument that his document duplicates
formulations of already existent rights and does it in a polemic fashion, although
he has stated that it represents some kind of first try and as such it is
perfectible. He has said also something rather important: that the right to
communication might become the �umbrella� groups all related rights. Idea with
which we agree.
Therefore we insist and particularly from a
Latin American perspective that it is possible to strengthen the already
admitted rights and at the same time to put forward proposals of specific
contents about the new rights of communication that have to do with real needs
of access, participation, use and empowerment of ICT within the context of the
Information Society. Then we proceed with the best way to enunciate these needs
as rights but also with harmonizing these very novel concepts with the already
existent rights.
In addition, from an strategic point
of view we must continue the restating or rewriting efforts in order to
outreach the protection that can be demanded based on traditional rights,
mainly through the introduction of sues and petitions and working closer with
courts and judges, plus actions of knowledge and socialization. These are
aspects not to be overlooked.
More that overcoming these barriers, the
important thing about the work of a really comprehensive and systemic approach
of rights lies in facing a �real policy� of governments and international
ruling organizations that privilege economic growth over human needs, and in
starting to promote a notion of human dignity in an information society with
freedom, but at the same time with justice and solidarity.
In summary, working from the existent does not
exclude looking for new concepts in order to assume them and claim them as
rights. There is no contradiction between these two tasks.� This is a more realistic view and it is
urgent to support it from a Latin American perspective.
E
Mail:[email protected]
[1] Cfr. �Citizen
initiatives for the right to communication�, in Chasqui, Revista Latinoamericana de Comunicaci�n, N. 64, Quito,
CIESPAL, Dec. 1998, p. 30.
[2] Cfr. �Brief reasoned glossary of the Communication and Information for
the understanding and to better understand oneself�. Doc. Caracas, March 2003.
[3] See Systematic Course on Human Rights in
www.iepala.es
[4] See www.crisinfo.org
[5] See criticisms by Article 19 in www.article19.org/1512.doc , and
the responses by Hamelink in //lac.derechos.apc.org/wsis