Re: <amarc-3> Section I of the Declaration

[Roland Hammer <Roland.Hammer@wanadoo.fr> (by way of Elvira Truglia <elv@alcor.concordia.ca>)]

Hello Mark,

I don't want to make a big fuss about the question of limitations to 
freedom of expression, but I think freedom of expression should not be 
considered a right above everything else. 
I don't believe you can skip that question by just giving some examples. 
First, you cannot have treaties on expression and access to 
communication as a human right separated, isolated from other human 
rights. I would e.g. be strongly opposed to see a radio station like 
Radio Milles Collines be able to invoke whatever right to free 
expression to launch campaigns that DIRECTLY lead to massacres.
Second (re:A) The fact that "Governments are rarely representative of 
the population of a country,.." does by no means invalidate that. The 
law in general is precisely supposed to avoid absolutist, totally 
arbitrary actions, mainly by governments. The fact that many governments 
do not abide by the law doesn't make the law wrong. On the contrary we 
can precisely point to governments because they do not respect the law, 
because we have a standard to apply to them, in cases of freedom of 
expression as in others. 
Three (re B) I think your examples miss the point. They do not really 
concern freedom of expression (only) and neither the Taliban nor 
Pinochet invoked the limitations (which are very clearly defined) of 
international human rights law.
Four (re: C) " If something is libelous, the answer is not to ban but 
prosecute for untruths. Similarly, direct  incitement to commit a 
criminal act is something very different from "hate speech'".
Completely agree. 
"I do not believe that 'freedom of expression creates ethnic tensions',
these arise from concrete economic & historical factors; although 'hate
speech' can maintain or exacerbate such tensions, the answer is to face
& deal with the underlying problems, not the symptoms."
Totally agree.
What is prohibited by international law is precisely this: hate speech 
appealing to act, to kill, racial discrimination, etc. again: it's 
defined in the different treaties. In other words it doesn't cover 
appeals to support your cricket team because that's true English 
culture, but it does cover paedophile web sites or Mille Collines' 
appeal to kill people according to broadcast lists. 
I think we serve best the freedom of speech (right to access is not 
concerned here) if we do not "absolutize" it. 

Sections II and III. Very good. Maybe step up in the list all those 
points that imply direct, material, financial support. Because that's 
what will make a difference, if anything; I doubt that the big 
communication giants will agree to renounce to more than some crumbs.

Maybe the difficulty of including children's broadcast is that one would 
have to mention many other specific categories..

Regards 

Roland



++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
AMARC 7 Foro Virtual Forum Virtuel
http://www.amarc.org/amarc7
to unsubscribe / pour se desabonner / para abandonar :
e-mail "unsubscribe amarc-3 " to: majordomo@comunica.org