mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (08/29/85)
References:
In a flyer for a conference (ProText II), there is an advertisement for
a book, part of which I quote:
======================
The Right to Communicate: A New Human Right
(Edited by Desmond Fisher and L.S.Harms, Publisher not stated)
ISBN 0-906783-18-6 (hardback) or 0-906783-19-4 (paper)
This book presents for the first time to the general public a series of
essays dealing with a proposed new human right -- the right to communicate.
The publication is relevant for three reasons. Firstly, the world is on
the brink of a communciations explosion, as far-reaching in its effects on
society as the transition from agriculture to industry. Secondly, an
extension of communications freedoms is increasingly being seen as an
essential prerequisite for the proper working of the democratic system.
Thirdly, the right to communicate is emerging as the most important and
comprehensive of all communications freedoms and as a fundamental human
right. ...
======================
This idea seems to touch on some important issues of political theory.
The concentration of power depends on the right to communicate; the
first thing Jaruzelski did in the Polish coup was to cut off all the
telephones, so that Solidarity could not communicate to organize any
resistance. A company president can communicate with any of the workers,
but few workers can communicate to the president. Those who control
the communications control the society. This holds both for mass media
and for point-to-point communications. The ability of an individual to
communicate with another is jeopardized in most technological societies
by the ability of authorities to monitor the communication, meaning
that the less powerful cannot communicate freely things that would be
distasteful to the monitoring authorities.
In a libertarian society, the effective running of the society depends
on individuals having equal access to information, and that depends on
the ability to request and receive information at need. In a Socialist
society, individuals need to be able to communicate with the planning
authorities, so that their needs may ne known and acted upon. No matter
what kind of society your individual utopia may be, it will probably fail
if there is a significant imbalance in access to communication. In the
olden days, such an imbalance could not occur -- everyone had to send
messaged by hand, except for special messages that could be sent by
heliograph or smoky fires or drums -- whereas modern technology allows
for tremendous imbalances.
I think that the right to communication is not the correct name for this
emerging human right. Rather, it is the right for each individual to
have as much access to private communication as anyone else has. (That's
not well stated, I know, but it will do for now). The problem is that
technology permits massive broadcast communication, and immediate
long-distance communication, but the power this gives is available only
to those that have the authority or the money to access the media. These
are usually many of the same people as have access to means of intercepting
communication, and at the same time are those who have a vested interest
in ensuring that only "friendly" communication goes on.
In a scale of human rights, I would put this (renamed) right to communication
right up there with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and well
above property rights.
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt