Search Tips
sorted by
30 shown of 262 entities
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 6
- Paragraph text
- Where rule of law prevails, Governments and Government officials stay accountable to their citizens through a variety of mechanisms. Too often, however, accountability is a chimera, and nowhere is this more evident than in situations where authorities withhold information from the public. Without freedom to access information of all kinds — in particular when Governments withhold information from the public and its judicial, legislative and media mechanisms — abuses may take place, policies affecting the general welfare may not be tested and improved and overall public engagement and participation diminishes, often by design. By contrast, information-rich environments help promote good decision-making and meaningful public debate, building credibility for public institutions. Even if implementation may not always meet the highest standards, Governments have recognized this fundamental point, at the intersection of good, open government and the human right of access to information, recognizing that the credibility of public authorities depends on their willingness to engage with those who fund their work and elect their key officials — the members of the public.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2017
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 29
- Paragraph text
- The permissible limitations on the right to privacy should be read strictly, particularly in an age of pervasive online surveillance - whether passive or active, mass or targeted - regardless of whether the applicable standards are "unlawful and arbitrary" under article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, "arbitrary" under article 12 of the Universal Declaration, "arbitrary or abusive" under article 11 of the American Convention on Human Rights, or "necessary in a democratic society" under article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (see A/HRC/13/37, paras. 14-19). Privacy interferences that limit the exercise of the freedoms of opinion and expression, such as those described in this report, must not in any event interfere with the right to hold opinions, and those that limit the freedom of expression must be provided by law and necessary and proportionate to achieve one of a handful of legitimate objectives.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2015
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Protection of journalists and press freedom 2010, para. 36
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur notes that, in time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and which is officially and lawfully proclaimed in accordance with international law, a State may derogate from certain rights, including the right to freedom of expression. However, derogations are permissible only to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation and only when and for so long as they are not inconsistent with its obligations under international law. Moreover, there are certain non-derogable rights, as outlined in article 4(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Hence, a journalist should never, under any circumstances, be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life, subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, imprisoned merely on the grounds of inability to fulfil a contractual obligation, held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence at the time when it was committed, denied recognition as a person before the law, or denied the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Humanitarian
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The role of digital access providers 2017, para. 5
- Paragraph text
- International human rights law establishes the right of everyone to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, and through any media of his or her choice (see Universal Declaration of Human Rights, art. 19; and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art. 19). The Human Rights Council and General Assembly have reiterated that the freedom of expression and other rights apply online (see Council resolutions 26/13 and 32/13; General Assembly resolution 68/167; and A/HRC/32/38). The Human Rights Committee, previous mandate holders and the Special Rapporteur have examined States’ obligations under article 19 of the Covenant. In short, States may not interfere with, or in any way restrict, the holding of opinions (see art. 19 (1) of the Covenant; and A/HRC/29/32, para. 19). Article 19 (3) of the Covenant provides that States may limit freedom of expression only where provided by law and necessary for the respect of the rights or reputations of others, or for the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals (see Human Rights Committee general comment No. 34 (2011); A/71/373; and A/HRC/29/32).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2017
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 43
- Paragraph text
- Intermediaries are increasingly required to assess the validity of State requests and private complaints against general legal criteria, and remove or delink such content based on such assessments. For example, the Cybercrime Act, 2015 of the United Republic of Tanzania only exempts hyperlink providers from liability for information linked provided that they "immediately remove[ ] or disable[ ] access to the information after receiving an order to do so from the relevant authority". In the context of copyright, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of the United States of America exempts providers of "online services and network access" from liability for third party content only if they respond "expeditiously to remove, or disable access to the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity" upon notice of such infringement. These notice and takedown frameworks have been criticized for incentivizing questionable claims and for failing to provide adequate protection for the intermediaries that seek to apply fair and human rights-sensitive standards to content regulation.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 41
- Paragraph text
- Human rights law places a high value on the individual's ability to hold beliefs and practise religious faith. The Human Rights Council has raised concerns about discrimination and violence against persons on the basis of their religion or belief (see Council resolution 16/18). Yet neither article 18, on freedom of religion, conscience or belief, article 19 nor article 20 (2) of the Covenant protects religions, institutions or beliefs as such. The Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief has noted that the right to freedom of religion or belief has sometimes been misperceived as protecting religions or belief systems in themselves (see A/HRC/31/18, para. 13), when it in fact protects individuals holding or expressing those beliefs. In paragraph 48 of its general comment No. 34, the Human Rights Committee emphasized that prohibitions of displays of lack of respect for a religion or other belief system, including blasphemy laws, are incompatible with article 19. Nor, the Committee noted, would it be permissible for such prohibitions to be used to prevent or punish criticism of religious leaders or commentary on religious doctrine and tenets of faith.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Social & Cultural Rights
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 8
- Paragraph text
- The "duties and responsibilities" under article 19 (3) appear nowhere else in the Covenant. Only in the preamble is it emphasized that the individual, having duties to other individuals and to the community to which he belongs, is under a responsibility to strive for the promotion and observance of the rights recognized in the Covenant. The language in the Covenant and in article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not identify duties or responsibilities of individuals to the State, but to other individuals and the communities in which they live, an acknowledgement that the only legitimate restrictions are those demonstrably grounded in and necessary for the protection of the rights of other individuals or a specific public interest. It is not unusual for States to highlight an individual's duty in order to bolster expansive limitations on the right to freedom of expression. However, the phrase "duties and responsibilities" adds nothing to claims for support of a State's powers of restriction. By no measure does the language prioritize the State over the rights enjoyed by individuals under the Covenant and the Declaration.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression in electoral contexts 2014, para. 29
- Paragraph text
- The need for a vibrant and critical debate, with no restrictions on the form or content of political expression, has been explored in depth by the European Court of Human Rights, which has emphasized that "the limits of permissible criticism are wider with regard to the Government than in relation to a private citizen, or even a politician". The State authorities may adopt, "in their capacity as guarantors of public order", penalties for defamation that are proportionate to the injury but only where the accusations are "devoid of foundation or formulated in bad faith". The reference to public order suggests that discretion of a government to restrict potentially defamatory statements against it should be limited to situations in which public order is threatened: While freedom of expression is important for everybody, it is especially so for an elected representative of the people. He represents his electorate, draws attention to their preoccupations and defends their interests. Accordingly, interferences with the freedom of expression of an opposition member of parliament, like the applicant, call for the closest scrutiny on the part of the Court.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2014
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The implications of States’ surveillance of communications on the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression 2013, para. 24
- Paragraph text
- The right to privacy is often understood as an essential requirement for the realization of the right to freedom of expression. Undue interference with individuals' privacy can both directly and indirectly limit the free development and exchange of ideas. Restrictions of anonymity in communication, for example, have an evident chilling effect on victims of all forms of violence and abuse, who may be reluctant to report for fear of double victimization. In this regard, article 17 of ICCPR refers directly to the protection from interference with "correspondence", a term that should be interpreted to encompass all forms of communication, both online and offline. As the Special Rapporteur noted in a previous report, the right to private correspondence gives rise to a comprehensive obligation of the State to ensure that e-mails and other forms of online communication are actually delivered to the desired recipient without the interference or inspection by State organs or by third parties.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Violence
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to access information 2013, para. 43
- Paragraph text
- The Inter-American Court has recently has found that violations of the right to know the truth can be a breach of the right to access information set forth in article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights, which recognizes freedom of expression.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression exercised through the Internet 2011, para. 62
- Paragraph text
- The Special Rapporteur is thus concerned that without Internet access, which facilitates economic development and the enjoyment of a range of human rights, marginalized groups and developing States remain trapped in a disadvantaged situation, thereby perpetuating inequality both within and between States. As he has noted previously, to combat situations of inequality it is critical to ensure that marginalized or disadvantaged sections of society can express their grievances effectively and that their voices are heard. The Internet offers a key means by which such groups can obtain information, assert their rights, and participate in public debates concerning social, economic and political changes to improve their situation. Moreover, the Internet is an important educational tool, as it provides access to a vast and expanding source of knowledge, supplements or transforms traditional forms of schooling, and makes, through "open access" initiatives, previously unaffordable scholarly research available to people in developing States. Additionally, the educational benefits attained from Internet usage directly contribute to the human capital of States.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Education
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression exercised through the Internet 2011, para. 31
- Paragraph text
- States' use of blocking or filtering technologies is frequently in violation of their obligation to guarantee the right to freedom of expression, as the criteria mentioned under chapter III are not met. Firstly, the specific conditions that justify blocking are not established in law, or are provided by law but in an overly broad and vague manner, which risks content being blocked arbitrarily and excessively. Secondly, blocking is not justified to pursue aims which are listed under article 19, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and blocking lists are generally kept secret, which makes it difficult to assess whether access to content is being restricted for a legitimate purpose. Thirdly, even where justification is provided, blocking measures constitute an unnecessary or disproportionate means to achieve the purported aim, as they are often not sufficiently targeted and render a wide range of content inaccessible beyond that which has been deemed illegal. Lastly, content is frequently blocked without the intervention of or possibility for review by a judicial or independent body.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Protection of journalists and press freedom 2010, para. 35
- Paragraph text
- The obligation to respect means that States must refrain from interfering with individuals' enjoyment of rights. While article 19(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights permits States to impose certain limitations on the right to freedom of expression, the Special Rapporteur is concerned that, all too often, States invoke this provision to justify undue interference with journalists' right to freedom of expression to prevent them from exposing corruption or misconduct by the Government or powerful private entities, or from reporting on other politically sensitive issues. Even though such limitations may be provided by law as required by article 19(3), in many cases the provisions are vague and ambiguous and are accompanied by harsh sentences, including imprisonment, and disproportionate fines. The Special Rapporteur would like to remind States that limitations on the right to freedom of expression must be the exception, rather than the rule. Further details regarding the criteria which must be met when States attempt to limit the right to freedom of expression are set out in the Special Rapporteur's most recent report to the Human Rights Council.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 22
- Paragraph text
- It bears re-emphasizing that article 19 of the International Covenant guarantees everyone the right to seek and receive information of all kinds, regardless of frontiers. At a minimum, States are obligated not to stand in the way of members of the public receiving information from organizations like the United Nations and its departments and agencies, absent a demonstration of the legitimate application of the limitations found in article 19 (3) of the Covenant. One can go a step further and highlight the broad consensus that States are obligated not only to avoid illegitimate restrictions on access to information but that they should create enabling environments for all rights under article 19 of the Covenant. While intergovernmental organizations clearly enjoy an independent personality under international law, their main policies and legal norms are often the result of the decisions of their Member States. As such, States should encourage the creation of environments that include access to information not merely because of some legalistic approach to intergovernmental organizations and the responsibility of the United Nations but because their citizens — all citizens, everywhere — should enjoy the right to information of all kinds regardless of frontiers, including information about intergovernmental organizations and the United Nations.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2017
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 7
- Paragraph text
- Article 19 (3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights allows for restrictions on the freedom of expression (but not on the freedom of opinion under article 19 (1)). According to article 19 (3), any restriction, to be legitimate, must be provided by law and necessary for the respect of the rights or reputations of others or the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals. Any restriction must be precise enough and publicly accessible in order to limit the authorities' discretion and provide individuals with adequate guidance (see the Human Rights Committee's general comment No. 34 (2011) on article 19: freedoms of opinion and expression). To be necessary, a restriction must be more than merely useful, reasonable or desirable. It is also well established that necessity requires an assessment of proportionality (see A/HRC/29/32). Proportionality requires demonstrating that restrictive measures are the least intrusive instrument among those which might achieve their protective function and proportionate to the interest to be protected (see general comment No. 34). When restrictions fail to meet the standard of article 19 (3), individuals enjoy the right to an effective remedy under article 2 (3) of the Covenant.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 44
- Paragraph text
- Article 2 (1) of the Covenant requires States to ensure the protection of individuals in the face of such assaults by non-State actors on rights, obligated as they are to respect and ensure respect for all human rights. However, States also need to be cautious not to provide any kind of support in their own laws and actions for the effort to strike down those who hold contrary beliefs. Yet many States still adopt or implement laws that permit them to punish individuals for expression seen to criticize belief. In 2015, for instance, Myanmar amended the Criminal Code to penalize "speech intended to cause religious outrage which insults, or attempts to insult, religion or religious belief" (see A/HRC/31/71, annex I). Saudi Arabia has harshly punished individuals for expression of religious beliefs contrary to national legislation. In 2014, Brunei Darussalam enacted a law that would subject those who insult Islam to capital punishment, which the Government did not deny in its response. Blasphemy and apostasy laws worldwide not only restrict expression but give support to those who would attack others for religious views. Such laws exist not only in the Middle East and South and South-East Asia, where they are prevalent, but also in Europe and the Americas.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 25
- Paragraph text
- States often assert vague prohibitions on "advocacy of hatred" that do not amount to incitement under article 20 of the Covenant or meet the requirement of necessity under article 19 (3) thereof (see A/67/357). In an exchange with the Government of Pakistan, I raised concerns that recent legislation aims to limit "extremism" and "hate speech" without specifically defining either term. The Government responded as follows: "We firmly believe that for combating extremism, any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, should be prohibited by law." While that statement accurately reflects article 20, the legislation itself would penalize the dissemination of information "that advances or is likely to advance inter-faith, sectarian or racial hatred", seemingly regardless of whether such dissemination constitutes incitement. European human rights law also fails to define hate speech adequately, a point emphasized in the joint dissenting opinion of Judges Sajó and Tsotsoria in the Delfi v. Estonia judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in 2015. The dissenting judges stated that even in the context of the prohibition of incitement, there is a very real risk that States will regulate online expression without demonstrating that the elements of incitement have been met in an online environment.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Social & Cultural Rights
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 23
- Paragraph text
- Public order is often used by States to justify measures to counter violent extremism. The measures adopted are rarely drawn narrowly enough to satisfy the necessity or proportionality criteria. The Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism has urged Governments to address the problems of extremism with precise definition and proportionate measures. He criticized Human Rights Council resolution 30/15 on human rights and preventing and countering violent extremism as it may "allow some Governments to qualify non-violent actions that are critical of the Government as violent extremism" (see A/HRC/31/65, para. 27). In 2016, in an annual joint declaration, United Nations and regional freedom of expression experts expressed deep concerns that programmes to counter violent extremism fail to meet international standards. Legislation recently adopted in the Russian Federation broadly criminalizes statements conveying support for "the ideology and practices of terrorism". In Kyrgyzstan, article 11 of the Law on Countering Extremist Activity prohibits the dissemination of extremist materials that call for or justify activities that, among other things, are defined as a "breach of national dignity" or "the carrying out of mass disorders".
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2016
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 26
- Paragraph text
- Through any media: Articles 19 of the Universal Declaration and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights were drafted with the foresight to accommodate future technological advances (A/HRC/17/27). The States parties to the Covenant chose to adopt the general phrase "through any other media" as opposed to an enumeration of then-existing media. Partly on this basis, international mechanisms have repeatedly acknowledged that the protections of freedom of expression apply to activities on the Internet. Regional courts have likewise recognized that protections apply online. The European Court of Human Rights, in discussing the similar protection of expression in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, has indicated that the forms and means through which information is transmitted and received are themselves protected, since any restriction imposed on the means necessarily interferes with the right to receive and impart information. In this sense, encryption and anonymity technologies are specific media through which individuals exercise their freedom of expression.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2015
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The use of encryption and anonymity to exercise the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age 2015, para. 22
- Paragraph text
- The right to freedom of expression under article 19 (2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights expands upon the Universal Declaration's already broad guarantee, protecting the "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". A significant accumulation of jurisprudence, special procedure reporting, and resolutions within the United Nations and regional human rights systems underscores that the freedom of expression "is essential for the enjoyment of other human rights and freedoms and constitutes a fundamental pillar for building a democratic society and strengthening democracy" (Human Rights Council resolution 25/2). The Human Rights Council, the General Assembly and individual States regularly assert that individuals enjoy the same rights online that they enjoy offline. The present report will not repeat all the elements of this consensus. In the context of encryption and anonymity, three aspects of the text deserve particular emphasis (see paras. 23-26 below).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2015
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The protection of sources and whistle-blowers 2015, para. 32
- Paragraph text
- Whistle-blowing does not always involve specific individual wrongdoing, but it may uncover hidden information that the public has a legitimate interest in knowing. International authorities and States often provide a general protection for the disclosure of information in the public interest, or disclosure of specific categories of information, or both. The Council of Europe Committee of Ministers recommends that States adopt protections for those who report threats or harms to the public interest, which it says "should, at least, include violations of law and human rights, as well as risks to public health and safety and to the environment". Zambian law provides an extensive definition that covers a range of maladministration, abuse of public trust, criminal and disciplinary offences and waste or fraud. The legislation of the United States specifies violations of a law, rule or regulation; gross mismanagement; a gross waste of funds; an abuse of authority; and a substantial and specific danger to public health and safety. While the term "public interest" may appear capacious as a basis for whistle-blower protection, a State might define "public interest" as involving information that contributes to public debate, promotes public participation, exposes serious wrongdoing, improves accountability or benefits public safety.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Health
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2015
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The protection of sources and whistle-blowers 2015, para. 12
- Paragraph text
- Effective access to information begins with how Governments categorize, or classify, information as secret or otherwise not subject to disclosure. Over-classification occurs when officials deem material secret without appropriately assessing the public's interest in access to it or determining whether disclosure would pose any risk to a legitimate interest. Secrecy should be imposed only on information that would, if disclosed, harm a specified interest under article 19 (3); even in the event of a risk of harm, a process should be in place to determine whether the public interest in disclosure outweighs that risk. Processes that allow for evaluation of classification decisions, within institutions and by the public, including penalties for over-classification, should be considered and adopted in order to ensure the greatest possible access to information in the public interest. The Swedish Constitution and its Freedom of the Press Act provide perhaps a welcomed translation of the principle of maximum disclosure when it comes to access to information held by public bodies, protecting the right of all public officials to communicate information and, except for specified situations, prohibiting public officials from sanctioning others for communicating information outside their institutions.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2015
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression in electoral contexts 2014, para. 59
- Paragraph text
- State-owned or public media broadcasters bear an extra responsibility to ensure that the political platforms of all candidates and parties across the political spectrum are given coverage. Furthermore, public media sources have an important role in ensuring critical analysis and the availability of countervailing viewpoints. Several national courts have ruled that State-run media have a responsibility to publish replies by critics of the Government to government statements on controversial issues. The Supreme Court of India, for example, recognized the right of reply to political statements in the columns of a government-owned publication. The Court held that a public-sector agency publishing an in-house journal, owing to its status as an instrument of government, had a duty of fairness to its readers, and demanded that both viewpoints be placed before its readers, however limited be their number, to enable them to draw their own conclusions. The media guidelines issued by UNTAC also set out the duty of balance and impartiality in detail. Guideline 8 provides: "Media outlets should give parties, groups or individuals whose views have been misrepresented or maligned by a publication or broadcast the 'right of response' in the same media outlet".
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2014
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression in electoral contexts 2014, para. 57
- Paragraph text
- However, the media must be encouraged to put in place mechanisms to ensure that all media actors adhere to the highest ethical standards of objective reporting, and guarantee equal coverage of political parties in a way that facilitates broad voter education and ensures all parties across the political spectrum are heard.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2014
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression in electoral contexts 2014, para. 50
- Paragraph text
- It is essential to the protection of freedom of expression during electoral processes that political parities and candidates are free to express ideas and communicate about any issue that they see fit. Unregulated expression and access to information are at their most crucial during times of political change, and any restrictions upon political expression can seriously threaten the democratic process. The European Court of Human Rights has previously spoken out against restraints on political speech, particularly prior restraints. Accordingly, campaign speech should not be regulated or restrained, unless it falls within a well-recognized understanding of restricted expression as recognized under international human rights law. The United Nations Technical Team on the Malawi Referendum has noted that, in order to ensure free political expression during electoral processes, any restrictions on expression must be exceptional and "should not be so vague or broadly defined as to leave an overly wide margin of discretion to the authorities responsible for enforcing the law, since uncertainty over legal boundaries has a dampening effect on the exercise of this right [to freedom of expression] and may encourage discrimination in ... [the restrictions'] application".
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2014
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to freedom of opinion and expression in electoral contexts 2014, para. 25
- Paragraph text
- Accordingly, the Inter-American Court has said, restrictions on political expression during electoral processes undermine the right to freedom of opinion and expression: "everyone must be allowed to question and investigate the competence and suitability of the candidates, and also to disagree with and compare proposals, ideas and opinions, so that the electorate may form its opinion in order to vote."
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2014
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right of the child to freedom of expression 2014, para. 15
- Paragraph text
- The scope of the right to freedom of expression is quite wide. According to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, article 13 of the Convention confers a right that can be exercised not only against the State, but also within the family, in the community, at school, in public policy decisions and in society.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Social & Cultural Rights
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Children
- Year
- 2014
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The implications of States’ surveillance of communications on the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression 2013, para. 27
- Paragraph text
- Tensions also exist between the right to privacy and the right to freedom of expression, for example, when information considered to be private is disseminated through the media. In this sense, article 19 (3) provides for restrictions on freedom of expression and information to protect the rights of others. However, as it happens for all permissible limitations to the right to freedom of expression (see below), the principle of proportionality must be strictly observed, since there is otherwise danger that freedom of expression would be undermined. Particularly in the political arena, not every attack on the good reputation of politicians must be permitted, since freedom of expression and information would otherwise be stripped of their crucial importance for the process of forming political opinions, advocating for transparency and combating corruption The international jurisprudence at regional level indicates that in situations of conflict between privacy and freedom of expression, reference should be made to the overall public interest on the matters reported.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to access information 2013, para. 76b
- Paragraph text
- [The core principles include:] Obligation to publish. Freedom of information implies not only that public bodies accede to requests for information, but also that they widely publish and disseminate documents of significant public interest, subject only to reasonable limits based on resources and capacity;
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- N.A.
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The right to access information 2013, para. 52
- Paragraph text
- For a restriction to be necessary, it must be based on one of the grounds for limitations recognized by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and address a pressing public or social need. Any restriction must also be proportionate to the aim invoked and must not be more restrictive than is required for the achievement of the desired purpose or protected right.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2013
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph