Right to Information and Transparency

This issue brief on ‘The Right to Information in Times of Crisis’ is part of the UNESCO series ‘World Trends in Freedom of Expression and Media Development’. It recognizes the heightened importance of information in crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic and attends to the ways in which States can foster trust among members of the public by enabling and ensuring access during such crises. The key highlights of the brief include: “1) Public access to information serves public health and economic goals and should be seen as part of the response and not as an external burden. 2) The right to information is a fundamental human right. The experience of many countries shows that it is possible to maintain right to information systems during a health emergency. 3) States are under a positive obligation to disclose on a proactive basis key emergency-related health, budgetary, policy-making, procurement, economic, benefits-related and other information. 4) A health emergency may result in logistical barriers to the processing of requests for information, such as an inability to access physical documents or to provide information to requesters who are not digitally enabled. Workarounds should, as far as possible, be sought to this. 5) The view that public authorities are too busy to process requests for information during a health emergency can be addressed, in part, by extensive proactive disclosure as a way to limit the volume of requests. 6) Digital technologies provide robust means to maintain right to information systems during health emergencies. Building on lessons learnt during the COVID-19 pandemic, States should put in place robust digital systems for the right to information, including in preparation for possible crises.” The objective of the issue brief is for it to serve as referential guidance for UNESCO member States, civil society organizations, media outfits, academics, and internet companies.

“This report examines the state of free speech online, mapping the impact of social media companies’ corporatisation of speech standards and the Government’s role in creating a two-tier speech system. It is the product of over two years of research on online censorship, during which major themes have emerged: “hate speech” including speech on sex, gender and race; political posts, including left-wing and right-wing posts; and posts relating to health, from mental health to Covid-19. It is fully expected that readers will find some of example banned posts in this report disagreeable, misguided or offensive. However, we ask you not to judge your agreement with these posts, but to probe the more important questions – first, should this lawful content be censored by a private company and second, should lawful speech be censored with the state’s backing? Readers should also note that the examples cited in this report are merely a fraction of the unjustified censorship that we have researched and that, no doubt, has not fallen within the confines of our research. Some readers will, rightly, feel that certain forms of unfair social media censorship are not represented in this report. Our examples are not intended to be a comprehensive or fully representative example – such a task would be impossible, given the scale and opacity of corporate censorship online. However, it is a snapshot of some of the major themes we uncovered in the course of our team’s research. The report goes on to consider the draft Online Safety Bill and why the proposals would materially damage the right to free expression online. Finally, we put forward recommendations for policymakers on how to keep our online space safe and free.”

“In this report, [the authors] identify some policy options available for the European Commission and for European Union member states should they wish to create a more enabling environment for independent professional journalism going forward. Many of these options are relevant far beyond Europe and demonstrate what democratic digital media policy could look like. [They] argue that, to thrive, independent professional journalism needs freedom, funding, and a future. To enable this, media policy needs (a) to protect journalists and media from threats to their independence and to freedom of expression, (b) to provide a level playing field and support for a sustainable business of news, and (c) to be oriented towards the digital, mobile, and platform-dominated future that people are demonstrably embracing – not towards defending the broadcast and print-dominated past. The report identifies a number of real policy choices that elected officials can pursue, at both the European level and at the member state level, all of which have the potential to make a meaningful difference and help create a more enabling environment for independent professional journalism across the continent while minimising the room for political interference with the media. [It is hoped that] it can serve as a useful starting point for a discussion of the role of media policy in European democracy (and beyond) going forward and thus help ensure we develop twenty-first- century media policies for a twenty-first-century media environment.”

“The Windhoek+30 Declaration was adopted on 03 May 2021 during a conference held to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the Windhoek Declaration and World Press Freedom Day. The conference was held under the theme ‘Information as a Public Good’ from 29 April and ended on 03 May. The Windhoek Declaration was promulgated in 1991 and focused on the role of a free, independent and pluralistic media. The date of the declaration’s adoption, 03 May, was declared World Press Freedom Day. The Windhoek+30 Declaration has called on the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and other intergovernmental organisations to reinforce cooperation with governments and civil society organisations in order to safeguard and enhance guarantees for the full exercise of the right to information and freedom of expression, both online and offline, with a particular focus on strengthening media freedom, diversity, and independence as well as media viability, transparency of digital platforms, and media and information literacy.”