INTERNET PRESS FREEDOM CONFERENCE

Endorsement of the Statement of Vienna and Strategies for Its
Implementation Uniting to Confront the New Press Freedom Challenge

By Aimee Saginaw

New York City, June 30, 2003 -- In a decisive show of support for journalistic freedom, representatives of the World Press Freedom Committee and other organizations voted unanimously on June 28 to endorse the Statement of Vienna, which calls for “press freedom in cyberspace.”

The statement, issued by the Coordinating Committee of Press Freedom Organizations in November of 2002, was drafted in preparation for the upcoming United Nations World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), scheduled to be held in Geneva, Switzerland, this year and in Tunis, Tunisia, in 2005. Press advocates fear that at these meetings, government officials may seek to impose restrictions on communication technologies that could threaten press freedom on the Internet.

The closing panel devising an action plan to implement the Statement of Vienna. From left, Andrew Nachison, Director of the American Press Institute's Media Center; Seymour Topping, San Paulo Professor of International Journalism, Columbia University; Richard Winfield, former General Counsel of The Associated Press; James Ottaway, Jr., WPFC's Chairman, and Roger Parkinson, former Publisher of the Toronto Globe and Mail.

The statement insists that, “news media in cyberspace and via international satellite broadcasts be afforded the same freedom of expression rights as traditional news media.” It also calls on WSIS officials to affirm this principle, and demands that Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights be “a living reality everywhere.”

Article 19 states, “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 Statement also distinguishes Internet news from other types of online material, such as cyberterrorism content, pornography, and hate speech, and notes that such material should be addressed by national legislation, not by online restrictions. As well, the statement rejects the notion that Internet restrictions are justified on grounds of national or regional sovereignty, or on grounds of bridging the “digital divide,” arguing instead that new communication technologies can in fact bridge the divide.

Also, the statement affirms existing agreements governing copyright and intellectual property rights and argues that undermining such agreements on the grounds of free access would only discourage creation and innovation.

After the vote, conference participants met to devise an action plan for implementing the principles promulgated in the Statement and at the conference generally. Among those speaking was Seymour Topping the San Paulo Professor of International Journalism at Columbia University, who to loud applause warned that US officials were increasingly immune to review under the Bush Administration’s post-9/11 “secrecy measures.”

“Since 9/11, the president has been empowered to deny access to any public records, which he deems sensitive without being required to elaborate on the criteria for such action,” Topping said. “By executive order he has extended the power to classify information to Vice-President Cheney. All correspondence from foreign governments is now subject to classification. The CIA has been given enhanced authority to bar documents from declassification. Access to presidential papers of past administrations has been narrowed.”

Andrew Nachison, Director of the American Press Institute’s Media Center, suggested engaging more US journalists in conversations about global press freedom. He also proposed that journalists and others “rally public support, lobby legislators, and litigate in the courts in defense of the democratic rights of access and communication.” Otherwise, Topping warned, these measures could become a “harbinger of support for restrictions on the Internet here and internationally” at the WSIS.

Later, Richard Winfield, an attorney with Clifford Chance and former General Counsel to the Associated Press, summed up the participants’ suggestions, some of which pertained to the upcoming WSIS preparatory meetings specifically and some of which were more general.

With respect to the upcoming WSIS meetings, the participants suggested the following:

• Translate the Statement of Vienna into other languages, including Spanish, Arabic, Cantonese and other languages.
• Publish articles, columns, and editorials urging US policymakers to take the lead in pressing WSIS officials to commit to the principles of Article 19.
• Continue to advocate for the implementation of Article 19's unqualified language in any statement or proposal arising out of the WSIS, and continue to resist the nebulous “right to communicate” advocated by some WSIS officials.
• Participate in the US government’s preparations for the WSIS, attend the State Department’s July 9, 2003 public meeting regarding the summit, and ensure that both the Internet and the mainstream press present their views at the meeting.
• Continue to press the US State Department and WSIS delegation to pursue the unambiguous position on press freedom articulated at the conference by Assistant Secretary Kim R. Holmes.
• Persuade the US delegation to the WSIS to propose a uniform “single publication rule” governing international Internet libel lawsuits.
• Send a delegation of US media leaders to monitor WSIS meetings and advocate the press freedom position at such meetings.
• Enlist the aid of emerging democracies in Eastern and Central Europe and Latin America to devise a persuasive legal brief and talking points in favor of Internet press freedom.
• After the 2003 WSIS meeting in Geneva, lobby Kofi Annan and others to find a different site for the 2005 conference, given Tunisia’s poor record on press freedom.

Winfield further divided the more general suggestions into legal, political, and editorial categories. The legal suggestions included the following:

• Step up criticism of the aggressive efforts of governments and courts to assert jurisdiction over the Internet (i.e, in Australia, Zimbabwe, Italy and France).
• Apply the rules of international law and forum non conveniens to stop foreign courts and nations from effectively regulating US speech and conduct by asserting legal jurisdiction over the Internet.
• Help devise an international treaty governing news on the Internet, such that no journalist or news organization would be subject to liability for an article appearing on the Internet, except in the state with the closest connection to the publication, and/or which would resolve jurisdictional issues by establishing a universal “single publication rule.”
• Prepare model amicus briefs presenting both legal and policy arguments against Internet news restrictions.
• Support efforts of private Internet service providers to defeat government monopolization of the Internet by filing legal briefs with the European Court of Human Rights, arguing that any such monopolization of the Internet violates anti-monopoly provisions (just as the monopolization of television licenses does)

General political suggestions included:

• Support the Cox-Lantos Global Internet Freedom Act, and lobby Senator Richard Lugar and other senators urging favorable Senate action on the bill.
• Support expansion and funding of US government efforts to encourage the growth of free and independent media and liberal media laws in developing countries by, among other means, training journalists and judges.
• Support increased expenditures to build and modernize technology in lacking countries.
• Encourage media organizations worldwide to lobby their governments for free press rights in cyberspace.

Finally, participants suggested that the following editorial actions be taken to implement the conference’s principles:

• Refer widely, and frequently, to the Statement of Vienna as the international press community’s expression of principles for Internet news.
• Get content providers to commit to use the Internet as a vehicle for press freedom, and/or launch a media campaign against restrictions on free expression on the Internet.
• Undertake an industry-wide effort to affirm that Internet news is essentially the same as broadcast or print news, entitled to the same freedom from restrictions, and educate US journalists about Internet freedom of expression issues.
• Put the issue of Internet press freedom on the agenda of your organization’s next meeting.
• Create a contact group that would meet regularly to discuss threats to Internet news.
• Establish a WPFC or dedicated website to monitor and receive complaints about abuses against Internet press freedom.
• Establish an alert system to monitor when dangerous proposals emerge and/or when incidents of abuse occur, and get broadcast and news outlets to disseminate such alerts.
• Establish a support network for journalists persecuted by repressive regimes, and support organizations fighting for press freedom.

With that, the WPFC Press Freedom on the Internet concluded, along with a commitment to fight for a free flow of information devoid of government interference on the Internet.