May 3 marks World Press Freedom Day this year. For three decades, the United Nations has used this day to highlight progress and setbacks in freedom of expression. It is a reminder that freedom of speech and of the press is the keystone of all human rights.
An independent press makes it possible to bring to light the shortcomings of the decisions of the public authorities or private actors. It is difficult to assert equality rights or fundamental rights such as the right to be judged according to rigorous standards before an impartial judge if one is deprived of the right to speak, write or show. It is therefore essential to promote the ability of the media to report on inequities, injustices or frauds.
The Internet facilitates the transmission of information, but generates situations that weaken the media. The massive shift of advertising revenue to online platforms has been accompanied by a resurgence of sites offering content primarily intended to capture people’s attention, in particular by confirming their beliefs. This weakens the media based on the production of content validated according to proven journalistic methods. A phenomenon conducive to the proliferation of “fake news”.
The extent of freedom of expression remains a hotly debated issue. Where does the freedom to say and show stop? Some delimit the scope of freedom of expression based on their moral or ethical conceptions: what clashes with the values to which they adhere must be censored. Others neglect to consider that freedom of expression is subject to limits validated by judges.
Individual and collective freedom
The jurist Xavier Bioy explains that “freedom of expression occupies a special place in the landscape of freedoms, because its role is not limited to conferring prerogatives on the individual. It is also […] of a general principle which conditions the existence of democracy and of all fundamental rights. The right to express oneself and the right to receive information condition all social and political life”. Seen in this light, the principle of freedom of expression is the common thread of laws and other measures designed to ensure not only the free flow of ideas, but also the protection of effective opportunities to express oneself and to be informed.
Freedom of expression is guaranteed by both the Canadian Charter and the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This ensures that laws can only impose limits deemed reasonable and justifiable in a free and democratic society. Moral precepts or ethical visions cannot in themselves limit expressive freedoms. But they can provide arguments to convince of the reasonableness of the limits.
It is the courts that ultimately determine whether a law restricting freedom of expression constitutes a reasonable and justifiable limit. The courts have determined that all expressive activity is a priori protected by freedom of expression. It can be the dissemination of images, music, texts or the communication of messages on a public road, demonstrations or other gestures aimed at transmitting a message. But violent gestures are not protected expressive activities. In addition, a law that limits the ability to express oneself must be proportionate and sufficiently limited to meet demonstrable imperatives.
Reflexes to cultivate
To help strengthen freedom of expression and of the press, it is more important than ever to combat the reflexes that contribute to weakening it. For example, we too often take it for granted that the mere fact that a statement contradicts our beliefs is sufficient reason to censor it. Similarly, it is often assumed in some quarters that there is only one way to view the public interest or to picture what constitutes “reasonable” behavior. When freedom of expression is protected in a pluralistic society, it is normal that there coexist several ways of considering “reasonable” or the public interest.
When a media contradicts our opinions, the temptation is strong to condemn it. But it is precisely the pluralism of the media that provides the best guarantees for credible information. Protect diversity and the varied media offer is more than ever a condition for the effectiveness of press freedom. But in this universe dominated by online platforms that value attention and now monopolize the resources generated by the advertising market, the diversity of the media is on the decline.
Those who are attached to freedom of expression must stand up to those who claim to censor what does not suit them. We must cultivate the reflex of demanding that we establish how a limit that we claim to impose on freedom of expression and of the press is reasonable and justifiable in a democratic context. Without such a demonstration, the call for censorship is liberticidal.
In short, to cultivate the right reflexes with regard to this essential freedom for all the others, one day a year is really not too much!