Page 113 - Battleground The Media Volume 1 and 2

| Commun cat on R ghts n a Global Context

articulation of what eventually became known as the “right to communicate”
occurred in Article 19 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Ar-
ticle 19 states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression;
this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek,
receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless
of frontiers.” The boldest and most innovative component in this statement is
the “freedom to impart information.” Also noteworthy is the positive rendering
of this wording that is largely missing from the negative freedoms outlined in
influential standards such as the U.S. First Amendment: “Congress shall pass
no law. . .” Instead, communication rights are often articulated in ways that as-
sume people are not simply passive consumers, but also have a right of access
to diverse sources of information within a democratic media system. That is,
communication rights are not merely about “freedom from” but also “freedom
for,” and require at least a two-way communication flow based on principles
of balance, equal access, and democratic participation. Like other official state-
ments of human rights and democratic norms that we often take for granted,
this codification is a significant achievement for its role in shaping debates and
determining global norms and policies. However, such codes are often ignored
or interpreted in different ways, which sets the stage for contestation. Struggles
around the meaning and protection of communication rights have risen to the
fore during a number of historic and contemporary forums.

FrEE FLow oF inFormaTion vs.
righT To CommuniCaTE

Historically, the idea of communication rights has clashed with an emphasis
on “information” extricated from its communicative context. In other words,
while information is often treated like a commodity, communications is a cru-
cial human process that cannot be bought and sold on the market. Likewise,
systemic problems like the “digital divide” cannot be easily remedied by some
technical fix, but instead require processes that are by nature social and politi-
cal. Many advocates argue that communication rights should be considered an
inalienable human right, protected by international law.
Differing from communication rights in terms of its emphases and objectives,
the free flow of information doctrine first became prominent in U.S. foreign
policy in the mid-1940s, reflected in statements made in 1946. U.S. Assistant
Secretary of State William Benton said, “The State Department plans to do ev-
erything within its power along the political or diplomatic lines to help break
down the artificial barriers to the expansion of private American news agencies,
magazines, motion pictures, and other media of communication. . . . Freedom of
the press—and freedom of exchange of information generally—is an integral
part of our foreign policy.” John Foster Dulles, who would become U.S. secretary
of state in the 1950s, stated, “If I were to be granted one point of foreign policy
and no other, I would make it the free flow of information.”
In the1940s, liberals and conservatives alike, though perhaps for different rea-
sons, pushed for the free flow of information. Given the ascendance of Western