The Internet and the Right to Communicate Presented by: Tina Conley, Michael Gorman and Piper Ross Photo courtesy of Getty Images

Introduction The development of the internet changes conceptions of information rights (freedom of speech, copyright, universal access, cultural, etc.) Communication is a human right, therefore communication through the use of technology is a human right. To ensure that this communication space is available to all social, cultural and political groups, not only those substantiated by an economic market, policy must be devised and implemented to keep it fair and open.

Human Right to Communicate Original basis for a human right to communicate comes from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations, 1993) adopted in Scientific advancements such as telephony, the internet and such technologies should not be made for exclusive use by wealthy nations who have the market place to acquire them.

Satellites and Communication After WWII, the need for a infrastructure for global communication became apparent. Arthur C Clarke, in 1945, wrote about the possible uses of "extra-terrestrial relays". The first satellites were launched a dozen years later. Soviet Union launched Sputnik in 1957, starting a "race to space." In 1961, UN passed resolution that "Communication by means of satellite should be available to the nations of the world as soon as practicable..."

Mass Media Mentality Through new methods of communication, mass societies become conditioned through mass media, "the unilateral, vertical flow of non- diversified information."

UNESCO In 1973, the International Institute of Communication annual meeting's theme was "Man and the Right to Communicate", with hopes of getting this right passed into the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In 1974, UNESCO General Conference proposed initiatives to define this right. With east/west and north/south cultural and ideological differences prevailing during the 70s and 80s, 3 distinct points of views prevailed: Western, Non-aligned, and Soviet. Eventually it became evident that in contrast to traditional freedoms of one way communication, the new right to communicate would embody the conception of "participatory, interactive, horizontal and multi-way communication."

Politics and Policy Lessons learned from the early efforts to define and promote a right to communicate –The problem of the politics ○The policy processes were initiated by government officials and policy makers. ○As a result, there was no widespread political support to carry it forward. –The problem of defining ○To address the issue for a right to communicate at a national level, we need to explore the issue of definition

Definitions Defining the Right to Communicate Online –Conciseness is necessary if the right is to be applied universally –Interpretations by judicial officials to develop “constitutional stories” National Definitions –The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms –The U.S. Bill of Rights –The French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen International Definitions –Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)

National Initiatives AUTHORS’ RECOMMENDATIONS The right to communicate should be defined at the most general level –Allows individual countries to develop “constitutional stories” Achieving a right to communicate must be pursued through political processes at the national level –Difficult to enforce at international level

Soft Law Strategy Soft Law vs. Hard Law –Soft Law typically includes agreements on principles and norms achieved through consensus but do not have binding legal force. –Hard Law is legal principles entrenched in formal laws and treaties embodying legal security Advantages of Soft Law –More flexible and adaptable to a fast changing technical and political environment –More easily accommodate the inclusion of non-state participants –Implementation and administration costs are often lower than hard law. –Can serve as a transition to hard law

Communication Laws Differentiation between "communicative law" and "instrumental law." –Instrumental law is the most common form of law -- one in which an authority or state hands down law to people. If that law is not is not followed, people are punished. –Communicative law 'takes law as an invitation to dialogue between more or less equal parties: state officials..., intermediary organizations, and citizens,' and attempts to persuade rather than punish. Instrumental law –one way communication. Communicative law –allows for two-way communication.

Oppositions Western governments have generally opposed the right to communicate on the grounds it was the part of the establishment of some information order. Concentration of media ownership has worked against the movement to communicate. "What makes a right to communicate compelling is not the preconditions for its implementation, but the very fact that communication is a basic human need because it is a fundamental social process necessary for expression and all social organization."

Discussion Photo courtesy of Getty Images