Just a few months ago, citizens across the globe were amazed to find out about the existence of two massive communications surveillance programs run by the US government. The latters justification for such a violation of basic privacy rights ran along predictable lines: the programs were efficient because they prevented many terrorist attacks. There was never any specific information regarding these terrorist actions, which obviously leaves citizens with a bitter feeling that only increases their skepticism.

But less predictable is the response the government might give regarding the case involving Edward Snowden, the ex-NSA contractor and alleged whistleblower who told the world about these programs.

Some of the leaked documents indicate that the NSA and the British intelligence agency (GCHQ) allegedly spied on Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. In this particular case, Assange was defined as a malicious foreign actor, which is to say that he was classified as a threat to national security. WikiLeaks was apparently under such close surveillance that its website postings were monitored and the IP addresses of website visitors recorded. Another document describes how the United States pressured allied countries to get them to treat Julian Assange as a criminal. This is simply unacceptable in a democratic country that prizes itself on upholding the rule of law.

Article 19.2 of the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states that everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

Assange was defined as a malicious foreign actor, a threat to national security

These same fundamental rights are reflected in other regional human rights protection documents, such as: article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights; article 13 of the Inter-American Convention on Human Rights; and article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights.

Exercising these rights may be subject to legal restrictions considered necessary to ensure respect for the rights or the reputation of others, and to protect national security, public order, public health or public morality. But just like any other restriction, these must be applied in a strict sense.

What is vitally important here is that all these legal documents regulate freedom of expression and freedom of information in the same article, as the former is the basis for the latter, and because freedom of expression is not possible without the freedom to impart and receive information.

That is to say that access to information is a necessary condition to fully exercise freedom of expression and other rights. If one is not informed, his or her opinion may still be valid but incomplete, or at least different from what it would be if this information had been made available. And this affects other areas, such as exercising the right to vote.

That is why the United Nations Human Rights Committee has stated that freedom of expression and freedom of information are of the utmost importance in any democratic society.

Originally posted here:
The ‘art’ of limiting freedom of information