2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 185

1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.

2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.

3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.

4 The States Parties to the Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians, to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.

35. UNITED STATES VIEWS ON THE DRAFTING OF A CONVENTION ON FREEDOM OF INFORMATION: Statement Made by the U.S. Representative (Lord) in Committee III of the U.N. General Assembly, November 28, 1960 €

7

6

I have been asked why we have not intervened sooner. The answer is ultimately simple. First, we wanted to hear the views of others, and second, as our French colleague [Marcel Bouquin] said last Friday, freedom of information is of such vital importance to our way of life that it is, in our opinion, worthy of the most careful reflection, particularly at a time like this when drafting a convention on freedom of information. Lest our continued silence be misinterpreted, I shall intervene at this time, but I would be less than honest if I did not confess to a certain amount of confusion in my mind as a result of the debate so far.

This confusion on my part actually began last year when our committee first undertook active consideration of this convention and succeeded in adopting the preamble and article I. I was struck then, but nowhere near as much as this year, by the enormous differences of views. It seemed that those countries which enjoyed full freedom of information were cast in the anomalous light of defensive positions, while those which grant no rights of freedom of information to their peoples were incongruously cast in the light of crusaders for the free flow of information.

No example of this contradiction was clearer than the debate which raged concerning the substitution of the word "gather" for the word "seek" which had been in the original text of article I. You will recall, Mr. Chairman, that this substitution was carried by a one-vote margain. We voted against this substitution and would gladly do so again, because in our view the word "gather" is a word

The text of art. 18 was adopted unanimously Nov. 18, 1960.

'U.S.-U.N. press release 3588 (text as printed in the Department of State Bulletin, Dec. 19, 1960, pp. 936-939).

See American Foreign Policy: Current Documents, 1959, pp. 146-147.

which limits, especially when compared to the word "seek." "Gather" implies that those who report the news have only such news at their disposal as some higher force-presumably the state-sees fit to parcel out to them; whereas "seek" carries with it the connotation that those responsible for reporting the news have access to all information available be it complimentary or uncomplimentary to the state-and the right to report this news.

Or, take another example which arose last year. You will recall that the word "objective" also crept into the text. Now, I am certain that all of us here would ardently wish that all information would be objective. We are certainly no exception. But, quite honestly, who is to decide what constitutes objective information and what does not? Is it the state? And, if so, can we be so ingenuous as to believe that the state, any more than ourselves as individuals, will appraise information which is complimentary to it as objectively as information which is not?

Or, take another example-the words "accurate and undistorted." Actually the word "objective" was brought forward as a compromise for an amendment to include the words "accurate and undistorted" in the text. These words have a curious way of inserting themselves in virtually any and all texts concerning freedom of information, be it a resolution, a declaration, or a convention. And I am certain that as our work proceeds on this convention we shall see them in the form of amendments over and over again. No one in his right mind could object to the desire that all information be accurate and undistorted. And, as in the case of the word "objective," we are no exception. But, similarly, who is to decide what is accurate and undistorted information and what is not? Evidently the state, and therefore these words cannot but serve to inhibit the free flow of information. Mr. Chairman, I do not cite these examples in any way to impugn the motives of the sponsors of such amendments or to cast aspersions on their oft-reiterated dedication to the concept of freedom of information. I am certain that in advancing such amendments they are acting in complete conformity with their concept of what is freedom of information and what is not. And I hasten to reassure the committee that in continuing to object to such amendments weand by "we" I mean all of us who enjoy complete freedom of information—are acting entirely in conformity with our own concept of this fundamental freedom.

The emphasis here, Mr. Chairman, is on the word "concept," and I wish to draw particular attention to the enormous differences between the concepts of this right as enunciated here in our committee. As you know, in my country we enjoy absolute freedom of information. The press in our country is neither an arm of the United States Government nor does the United States Government seek to curtail the free flow of information. The right to know is a right which we consider fundamental, and the only way it can be achieved, in our view, is to allow our people access to all the news available and to allow them to judge for themselves between the various points of view expressed in all our media of information. Consistent with this philosophy, it will come as no surprise that as long as it was published

our citizens could buy a newspaper called the Daily Worker on virtually any newsstand in the United States. And, as you can imagine, this newspaper was not what could be considered friendly either to the United States in general or its Government in particular.

Implicit in the right to know is the right to criticize, and, as all of you who have read our newspapers or listened to our radio or watched our television will know, the Government in my country is not spared criticism. Possibly this was why I was so struck by the statement made last Friday by our distinguished colleague from Ceylon [A. B. Perera]. Unless I misunderstood him-and I hope he will correct me if I did—his main objection to the press in his country seemed to stem primarily from its having taken a different point of view than his own. Having done so, he said, the press is no longer popular with the Government and, in fact, has been turned over to the people-as he put it, "in whose hands it should be." Thus, it would seem that in one country the press criticizes the government and has remedial action taken against it by the government, while in another such as my own, for example one of the jobs of the press is to criticize if it sees fit to do so. Certainly in this instance there could be no greater divergency in each of our concepts of freedom of information; yet here we are both talking about the free flow of information.

Mr. Chairman, the heart of our discussions this year has centered on the problem of inaccuracies in information. Let me say at the outset that I would be the last to contend that inaccuracies do not exist. Of course they do, and the press in the United States is no exception. And, quite naturally, when inaccuracies occur, it is nothing short of infuriating. Hence, I can understand fully the deep irritation of the delegate of Nigeria, when he read in one of our newspapers that his country was overrun by lizards. I have visited his beautiful country and know therefore that this was a wholly inaccurate report. But is the way to correct such inaccuracies simply to take over the press and thereafter exercise censorship over its reporting? We think not. In our country we have a curious set or system of checks and balances whereby inaccurate reporting has a way of correcting itself.

This system-if that is what it can be called, since there is no such thing as a system per se-this system is divided along four general lines. The first, and we feel most important, can best be described through the use of an example. Let me go back to the case of Nigeria. Now, it is perfectly correct that a report did appear in a United States newspaper giving undue prominence to lizards. But what our distinguished colleague from Nigeria failed to mention was that at least six other articles also appeared in the United States press at about the same time, all of which were highly complimentary to his country. Thus the reader was able to judge for himself the accuracy or inaccuracy of the original article, and, more important, through access to all-and I repeat all-information, he was able to obtain a balanced picture of Nigeria and its people.

See U.N. doc. A/C.3/PV.1035.

The second part of the system is monetary. Many delegates, when not insisting that the United States Government controls the United States press, have directly or indirectly referred to so-called powerful moneyed groups who control all media of information in this country. It is perfectly true that information media in the United States are privately owned and operated. But let us not lose sight of the fact that, being so, they are subject to the economic laws of supply and demand. Once again, therefore, the individual finds himself in position to exercise his influence over the situation. If he does not approve of what he reads or hears, he stops buying the particular newspaper which offends him or switches to another station. Assuming many of his fellow citizens follow suit, circulation or listening audience declines precipitously, bringing with it a decrease in the rates which can be charged for advertising-normally a large source of income for the media of information. If the medium still refuses to mend its ways, it may well be forced into going out of business. There are many, many examples of this process having taken place, not the least of which was the Communist organ Daily Worker, which withered into oblivion several years ago.

The third part of the system is the libel laws which exist in my country. Anyone who is falsely accused, maligned, or otherwise persecuted is perfectly free to take the perpetrator to court, suing him for libel.

And finally, the individual has recourse to what is called the letter to the editor. All who have read any of our reliable newspapers know that such letters are published on what the newspapers consider their most important page the editorial page.

This, Mr. Chairman, is our system of coping with the problem of inaccuracies. We have found it effective, and as a consequence we prefer it to other systems. It will come as no surprise, therefore, that we do not favor the long list of itemized limitations which now exists in article II.10 We deeply believe that such an itemized list will lead only to abuses of the free flow of information and, in effect, serve to legalize censorship. And this problem is compounded as the list is extended to include an additional exception clause to cover the particular sensitivity of each of us here present.

Early in this debate Judge [Salvador P.] López of the Philippines referred to the danger that this convention be turned from a convention on freedom of information to a convention on the limitation of information. Others have made similar observations. We agree wholeheartedly. Indeed, as I indicated earlier, we would go a step further in reiterating that, as a result of the amendments already adopted in article I last year, it is well on its way to becoming just that a convention for the curtailment of the free flow of information. Having said this, if the majority of the committee deems it desirable to include a limitations article and I repeat we are by no means

convinced it is desirable-we would prefer the formulation contained in the Philippine working paper.12

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say one more thing. When deciding upon the form which a limitations clause is to take, it is important to remember that there is a vast difference between inaccurate reporting and reporting which is unfavorable to one or the other's particular point of view. Possibly because we have confidence in ourselves, our country, and our way of life we accept criticism; indeed we seek it. We think this is right and that this is in fact one of our strengths. We hope others will agree with us and, more important, that they will see their way clear eventually to doing likewise.

36. PROVISIONS OF A DRAFT CONVENTION ON FREEDOM OF INFORMATION, Agreed to in Committee III of the U.N. General Assembly, December 2, 1960 13

Article 214

1. The exercise of the freedoms referred to in article 1 carries with it duties and responsibilities. It may, however, be subject only to such necessary restrictions as are clearly defined by law and applied in accordance with the law in respect of national security and public order (ordre public); systematic dissemination of false reports harmful to friendly relations among nations and of expressions inciting to war or to national, racial or religious hatred; attacks on founders of religions; incitement to violence and crime; public health and morals; the rights, honour and reputation of others; and the fair administration of justice.

2. The restrictions specified in the preceding paragraph shall not be deemed to justify the imposition by any State of prior censorship on news, comments and political opinions and may not be used as grounds for restricting the right to criticize the Government.

18 Yearbook of the United Nations, 1960, p. 336. For the text of the preamble and first article of the draft convention approved in Committee III at the 14th session of the General Assembly, see American Foreign Policy: Current Documents, 1959, pp. 146-147.

"The text of art. 2 was adopted in Committee III by a vote of 50 to 5, with 19 abstentions (including the U.S.).