As of 22 April 2009 this website is 'frozen' in time — see the current IFLA websites

This old website and all of its content will stay on as archive – http://archive.ifla.org

Beginning a Conversation on Access to Information and Freedom of Expression

PAPER

I am going to share some thoughts with you about a vitally important topic: freedom of expression and access to information. Before I begin, though, I want to tell you a little about who I am, and how I come to be standing here today.

I am an American scholar and librarian, a Russian and East European specialist by training, and my research and professional activities over the last 20 years have dealt with censorship and obstacles to access in that part of the world. Since 1989 I have been privileged to serve as the first Mortenson Distinguished Professor for International Library Programs at the University of Illinois at Ur bana-Champaign and, since 1991, as director of the Mortenson Center for International Library Programs. The purpose of the Mortenson Center is to strengthen international ties among libraries and librarians worldwide in order to improve access of all kinds. We provide opportunities for librarians and other information professionals from all over the world to come to our library for extended st ays or short visits; to date, nearly 250 librarians from more than 60 countries have spent time with us.

Thanks to the Center, my world view broadened again in the 1990s. I say again because from earliest childhood I had been exposed to other parts of the world: my anthropologist father, Sol Tax, spent years in Central America and traveled the globe while working with colleagues in dozens of countries to establish the international journal Current Anthropology. I spent three summers in wes tern Germany as a school girl, and two years in what was then East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) as a young woman. So although my academic and professional life centered for many years on Russia and Eastern Europe--and this remains an abiding interest--I have strong personal and professional ties elsewhere as well.

As Mortenson Professor and director of the Center I continued my research and professional activity in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, now much easier and more rewarding due to the dramatic changes of these years, but I also began to think more often and more deeply about other parts of the world. The drive to do so came from two sources. First, Russian and East European colleague s, looking for models for their countries, asked me to tell them about intellectual freedom issues in my own country, so I had to learn as much as I could about the US situation in order to be able to respond. (Although I am American, I knew much more about Russia in this regard than about the United States!) And second, as I talked with our Mortenson visitors and other colleagues whom I me t in the course of my travels about conditions and practices in their countries, I became increasingly aware that censorship and access really are global issues, especially now. I realized that I--and everyone concerned about access and intellectual freedom--needed not only to understand the situation in specific countries, but also to see the larger picture. What happens to the flow of informa tion in the new world we find ourselves in at the end of the 20th century? On the one hand, miraculous technology, disappearing borders, and a demonstrable need to function on an international level; on the other hand, old and new obstacles within countries that inhibit access both internally and among countries. We need to understand both phenomena, and relate them to one another, and think o f ways to work together to break down the barriers that divide us still.

When I learned last year that IFLA would be exploring these questions, I was delighted. After the Istanbul conference, the Executive Board established the Committee on Access to Information and Freedom of Expression (CAIFE), with the charge of “gathering membership opinion, reviewing expert advice and advising IFLA as to how it should implement its commitment to access to information and freedo m of expression.” CAIFE is chaired by Mr. Tony Evans (U.K), and has members from countries in every region of the world. I was pleased to be asked to serve as a resource person for the Committee. And when Bob Wedgeworth invited me to present this lecture, I was honored, of course, and eager to take this opportunity to gather my thoughts and present to you, for our further discussion, my ideas about this most vital and sensitive topic. I see my lecture today as part of the effort to bring us together in fruitful conversation, with the aim of giving CAIFE as many thoughtful comments as possible as it works, under Tony Evans’ guidance, to produce the report it must deliver one year from now in Copenhagen.

Certain assumptions underlie my thinking about access to information and freedom of expression. Let me lay them out for you.

First, as librarians, as information professionals, and as members of national and international associations in our field, we are committed to the fundamental principle of access to information and freedom of expression. We accept it as a basic human right, and we really mean it: these are not just pretty words, but rather, deeply important goals to which we aspire. Abridgment or denia l of this right diminishes the quality of life for us and our fellow citizens.

Most of the countries from which we come are signatories to one or more international standards that guarantee freedom of expression. Let’s hear a few of the relevant articles:

• The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (article 19): Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

• The UN’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (also article 19): Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference. 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 th rough any other media of his choice. . . .

• the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights (article 9): Every individual shall have the right to receive information. . . . .

• the American Convention on Human Rights (article 13): The exercise of the right . . . [to freedom of thought and expression] shall not be subject to prior censorship . . . .The right of expression may not be restricted by indirect methods or means, such as the abuse of government or private controls over newsprint, radio broadcasting frequencies, or equipment used in the dissemination of i nformation, or by any other means tending to impede the communication and circulation of ideas and opinions. . .

• the European Convention on Human Rights (article 10): Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. . .

This means that there is a commitment to freedom of expression, even if it is only on paper. This is an extremely important starting point. Unfortunately, it does not necessarily mean that every signatory lives up to its obligations--more on that in a moment, when I come to my second assumption.

Having committed ourselves to this principle, we must face up to the fact that we are engaged in something with the potential for great unpleasantness. What does freedom of expression really mean? What does access to information imply concretely?

We are talking about the freedom to express what may be extremely unpopular ideas without fear of reprisals, and protection of what may be a very unattractive minority of our citizens wishing to express those ideas.

We are talking about the right of citizens to be the loyal opposition, to express criticism of their governments without being considered criminals or traitors.

We are talking about the right to question or challenge prevailing ideas and beliefs widely and passionately held to be true. Examples of such challenges in the scientific sphere include the world isn’t flat, but round; and the earth circles the sun, not vice versa.” I chose these examples deliberately from ancient times, because looking back, we can see the folly of suppressing them. We cann ot see into the future and predict the path of science, but now, at the end of this millennium surely we cannot doubt the futility of believing that at any given moment we know the absolute truth. As for religious beliefs, there have always been those convinced that their own religion was the only true one, and prepared to die and to kill for it. I expect there always will be such people. The best we can hope for, in my view, is societies based on laws that protect those people’s rights to hold such beliefs, but prevent them from suppressing other opinions and practicing violence. (For a brilliant discussion of these questions, I recommend to you two recent books by American authors: Jonathan Rauch’s Kindly Inquisitors and Leonard Levy’s Blasphemy.)

We are talking about the right of any citizen not only to express any view, but to have access to the full range of views expressed. The human mind has proven itself capable of coming up with the broadest possible spectrum of ideas. We can be sure that someone will find any given idea attractive, and someone else will find that same idea offensive. We should allow people to wander free ly among ideas. We may use our educational and religious institutions and, certainly, our families to teach the values we hold as individual human beings and as members of a particular society and culture. But forbidding access simply makes the banned ideas more attractive, and as far as I can tell, it doesn’t work anyway: anyone who really wants to read a forbidden book or see a banned film fi nds a way to do so.

If we accept the right of access, then we, as librarians, play a central role as providers of access. Whether a reader wants Shakespeare or Agatha Christie, Aristotle or an automobile repair manual, Descartes’ philosophical works or Hitler’s Mein Kampf, we must make sure that he or she can find these volumes in some library.

My second assumption is that every country--no exceptions whatever--has problems with access to information and freedom of expression. If we have any doubts about this assumption, we need only leaf through a few issues of the excellent British journal Index on Censorship, particularly the Index Index section, where countries appear in alphabetical order with brief listings of cen sorship actions under each; or look at reports on dozens of countries published by Article 19, the International Centre Against Censorship, also based in Britain. Attempts at controlling access may come from governments or from pressure groups within the population, and the type and degree of control threatened or carried out may vary; but the fact that such abuses take place everywhere cannot be disputed. After considerable reading and thinking about this phenomenon as it has manifested itself in many societies over the course of recorded history, I have come to the conclusion that there must be a universal human instinct to censor. It is too widespread to ignore. I’ll return to this point in discussing my fourth assumption.

My third assumption is that people within a country know their own situation better than anyone outside possibly can, and are therefore in the best position to suggest strategies and solutions for improving access and achieving freedom of expression in their own country. This assumption has a very important corollary, of which I remind myself frequently, and I will take the liberty now o f reminding you: outsiders cannot solve this kind of problem; only people who live inside a country can do it. There are certainly useful things outsiders can do, but preaching, pointing fingers, and inciting to action while safely on the other side of the fence are rarely, in my view, among them. Indeed, these activities can hurt efforts within a country, and in some cases can hurt indi viduals in the worst possible way.

Imagine a country--hypothetical country A--where the government controls freedom of expression and access to information. Librarians within country A are doing their best to function within the system and, at the same time, to provide at least limited access for their users. Their job is terribly difficult. A delegation of well-meaning librarians from outside targets country A and demands lou dly and publicly that the government lift its controls and conform to the charters it has signed. Will this action, however well-meaning, help librarians within the country achieve our common goal? I do not think so. Colleagues inside country A may come up with a plan involving some kind of help from outside, in which case we should be ready to discuss the plan with them and respond in an appr opriate way--I’ll return to this point later--but I do not believe we should initiate “help” ourselves, without the kind of ongoing consultation I am proposing, and without a clear invitation to do so from within that country.

I realize that the temptation to intervene is terribly strong. I often feel it myself. We see abuses somewhere in the world; we know that country’s government has signed one or more of the charters I mentioned a moment ago; we agonize over the pain people in that country are suffering; and the urge to speak out, to take some kind of action, to see justice done, is overwhelming. I am suggesti ng that we control this very natural and even noble urge, because it is at best ineffective, and at worst dangerous for the very people we want so much to help.

My fourth assumption is that there is a universal human need to express ourselves freely, and that this urge is as strong and as inexorable as the urge to censor. The force of free expression counteracts the force of censorship, and there is a constant and unremitting tension between the two.

Given these assumptions--if we accept the goal of access and freedom of expression, but recognize that all countries fall short of attaining it; acknowledge that there is no single way to achieve the goal; and accept the tension between the two mighty forces of control and expression--what are we to do? As an international organization of professionals, how are we to mesh our ideals with action ? I see four areas in which we can be active.

First, we can communicate with one another.

We must establish mutual trust and respect, because we must be able to talk frankly with one another about these terribly difficult and sensitive issues that confront us all. There are no easy solutions, given the range of countries we deal with. We must not permit ourselves to patronize one another, or to place conditions on one another that will be impossible for some of us to meet. For ins tance, in our hypothetical country A, political literature produced by groups opposing the government is illegal. For the international community to demand that librarians in country A defy the law is arrogant, cruel and pointless. On the other hand, we do not want to allow ourselves simply to throw up our hands and put aside those problems that seem overwhelming. Rather, we should listen to our colleagues in country A, and on their advice, seek ways to help them achieve our common goal without endangering them professionally and personally. This may be a long, slow process of delicate negotiation; there may be many delays and failures. We will feel frustrated. Patience is a virtue too often forgotten!

We must create channels through which we continue these conversations begun here in Beijing. These channels may include more or less formal gatherings within a particular country or region, perhaps at regularly scheduled meetings of library associations, as well as electronic channels such as the IFLA listserv. We must recognize that there may be difficulties in discussing these matters publi cly, and find ways to do so diplomatically, protecting one another as effectively as we can from whatever pressures may be applied.

Second. we can document our individual situations.

It is my very strong conviction that we must not be absolutists, no matter how tempting that may be, and that we must be patient and diplomatic. As I have mentioned before--and I know we are all aware of it--these are highly sensitive issues, and the people in positions of power who see it as their job to defend control of information and access tend not to have a sense of humor or a high de gree of tolerance. If they are the government, they may have police and armies to enforce their point of view Even if they haven’t got the power of government behind them, they sometimes use force, and we do not want to make victims out of our colleagues.

Third, we can encourage each other to move forward despite our difficulties.

Librarians in extreme situations can do this quietly, using the educational opportunities at their disposal to move toward openness and tolerance. In country A, librarians may not be able to put opposition publications on the shelves, but if we talk with them, we might learn that they are indeed able to do a number of things--perhaps quite indirectly and subtly--that provide some measure of acc ess to a wider range of ideas. Furthermore, librarians in country B, whose situation is similar, may have developed some techniques that could be modified for use in country A. Colleagues from countries A and B can benefit from talking with one another. Those of us living in less extreme situations can, of course, act more boldly, working with other groups in our countries to challenge restric tive laws and change harmful practices.

Finally, we can offer support as an international community.

Those countries with laws, policies, and procedures in place can serve as models; we must study those models carefully to see what might be appropriate for other countries. Two Article 19 publications--Information, Freedom and Censorship: World Report 1991 (from which I took the texts of charters I quoted earlier), and Press Law and Practice: A Comparative Study of Press Freedom in European and Other Democracies (March 1993)-- are excellent tools to help us learn about the global situation. I want to stress that I do not believe any country’s model, no matter how successful, can simply be transplanted to another country. These issues are far too complex for simple solutions. But I do think we can learn from each other’s experience; again, it is colleagues inside a country who can tell us what is applicable and what is not.

We need to tell each other, and IFLA, what kind of international support would help each of us, and then consider how IFLA might supply such support if appropriate. CAIFE, I am sure, will work in the course of the coming year to arrive at some guidelines for us to consider in Copenhagen; but CAIFE will do a better job if it receives input from you, and from your colleagues at home.

We have a great deal of work ahead of us, and it is tempting to succumb to discouragement, because the issues are so difficult. But as a committed optimist, I would like to urge you not to succumb. I personally draw great strength from my fourth assumption--that we humans have an irrepressible drive to express ourselves freely--and I believe this drive can prevail over the force of censorship , despite all obstacles. With hard work, cooperation, mutual respecr, patience, tolerance, diplomacy, a sense of humor, and faith in the best of human nature, we will make some progress. We will not resolve all these problems, but we must proceed with that goal before us, and rejoice in each accomplishment, however small it may seem.

Thank you for your patience, and I look forward to our ongoing conversation.