And there is a significant segment of society that is happy to cheer on a blanket erasure of constitutional and decades-old internationally recognized rights. There is more than a real risk of a return to times when freedom of expression was restricted to the elite classes and dissent was punished.

In many ancient societies, the right to freedom of expression belonged to rulers, religious, and traditional authorities. Early democracies in Athens and Rome allowed public discourse, but with limitations. Colonial powers prohibited freedom of expression in order to control the Indigenous populations of the lands they occupied.

The hard-won advent of legislation and institutional mechanisms was a turning point. These instruments laid the groundwork to check authoritarianism, to protect free speech, and to enshrine freedom of expression as a fundamental human right belonging to everyone without distinction.

In recent times, far-right governments have become the norm in many countries. Conservative movements offline and online are rising. Political leaders are backpedaling on promises made by previous administrations to uphold human rights. Private sector entities such as global tech (Meta being one example) have fallen in line, perhaps emboldened by actions by the government of the day and/or in order not to jeopardize their massive profit margins.

As for the right to freedom of expression including press freedom, regimes that bend towards authoritarianism are demonstrating intolerance towards media outlets and towards individuals that criticize them, as reported for example by The Hill, CBC News, and The Guardian. Organizational communications and websites are being sanitized of rights-based language that is now at odds with prevailing State rhetoric. Meanwhile, the political elite boldly defy the law, emboldened to test the limits of their power.

The question is whether legal and institutional protections are sturdy enough to prevent erasure of these rights, propelled by activism by an informed local and global civil society committed to human rights.

What happens next in arguably one of the world’s strongest democracies will be instructive not only for the USA but for the rest of the globe. Protecting human rights requires upholding communication rights: freedom of expression and opinion, press freedom, accessibility, affordability, and accountability.

Without these, as governments all over the world know well, the rule of law is in jeopardy, and, as Democracy Now! has pointed out, we are sleepwalking into autocracy.

Image: Shutterstock AI

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) famously says, “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.”

Yet, in the UN’s recent Pact for the Future, adopted in September 2024, only three scant references to freedom of expression appear. One is in the Pact itself and the other two in the Pact’s Annex I, Global Digital Compact. Strikingly, freedom of opinion and expression are not mentioned at all in the Pact’s Annex II, Declaration on Future Generations.

The Pact pledges to “Address the risks to sustaining peace posed by disinformation, misinformation, hate speech and content inciting harm, including content disseminated through digital platforms, while respecting the right to freedom of expression and to privacy and ensuring unhindered access to the Internet in accordance with international law, domestic legislation and national policies” (p. 15).

Objective 3 of the Digital Compact says, “We must urgently counter and address all forms of violence, including sexual and gender-based violence, which occurs through or is amplified by the use of technology, all forms of hate speech and discrimination, misinformation and disinformation, cyberbullying and child sexual exploitation and abuse. We will establish and maintain robust risk mitigation and redress measures that also protect privacy and freedom of expression” (p. 44).

The Compact also proposes to “Establish regular collaboration between national online safety institutions to exchange best practices and develop shared understandings of actions to protect privacy, freedom of expression and access to information while addressing harms.”

Nowhere do The Pact and its Annexes affirm that upholding communication rights, of which freedom of expression and opinion are a fundamental part, is vital to securing a “path to a brighter future for all of humanity, including those living in poverty and vulnerable situations” as mentioned in the preamble (p. 1).

And equally unfortunately, the documents are silent on the relationship between the Pact and the twenty-year review of the landmark World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS+20), which takes place 7-11 July 2025. Many international non-governmental organisations and civil society organisations would like to know how the Pact for the Future informs and contributes to WSIS+20 outcomes.

As Global Partners Digital observes in its blog “Everything you need to know about the WSIS+20 Review” (19 November 2024), “For human rights defenders, it will be critical to ask what value the WSIS framework and its implementation has served in advancing (or not) human rights as the prerequisite for achieving the people-centred society envisaged by WSIS.”

The theme of Human Rights Day, “Our Rights, Our Future, Right Now”, cannot ignore – as the Pact for the Future appears to have done – the urgent need to address deficits in the global communications environment. Beyond key issues of accessibility, affordability, accountability, and compatibility, that would also mean tackling questions of ownership and control, media and press freedom, surveillance and censorship, as well as the weaponisation of misinformation, and disinformation.

After all, as WACC and its partners have underlined, “The ultimate goal of communication rights is to guarantee an environment of critical, competent, and creative interaction among individuals, as well as among diverse communities, cultures, ethnic groups, and nationalities, fostering peace and mutual understanding.” Exactly what one would expect of a Pact for the Future.

WSIS+20 may be the last chance to establish a lasting and meaningful rights-based framework for global communications which is effective and which enables all people everywhere to be seen and heard. A peaceful and just future depends on it.

Photo: https://www.ohchr.org/

The sport is regulated by FIFA at the global level and groups like CONMEBOL and UEFA at the regional level, entities which have grown so powerful that in some cases they have even managed to change domestic regulations for their benefit.

As part of their regulatory efforts, the bodies that govern football have made every effort to “depoliticize” the game, going as far as to issue hefty fines to players and clubs displaying political messages.

All of this of course while selecting countries with terrible human rights records to hold their tournaments. And while regulating political speech on the pitch sort of makes sense to ensure inclusion, football ultimately belongs to all of us and trying to obscure its political, race, and class dimensions will always be futile.

Last week, the modern form of the game seems to have shed its politically sanitized and pro-corporate clothes when several leading players of the French men’s national football team, which was competing in the UEFA EURO 2024 in Germany until it was eliminated by Spain last week, took a public stance against the far right. Players like Kylian Mbappé and Jules Koundé issued public declarations against the Rassemblement National, a political movement with deep roots in the fascist Front National party, that was leading in France’s legislative elections.

The Rassemblement National was ultimately defeated in the second-round election on 7 July. This was thanks in part to the efforts of these players who called for a national grassroots movement to stop the far right from winning power, a development which would have been a catastrophe for France’s efforts to advance social and climate justice.

As part of their calls against right-wing extremism, these remarkable football players, most of whom are racialized and grew up in low-income neighbourhoods across France, called for a country that would uphold diversity as a key principle.

In doing so, these players joined the many others who have used their position to call for social justice, promote democracy, and denounce anti-rights rhetoric. Some of these include Spain’s Jenni Hermoso’s struggle against sexual assault following the 2023 Women’s World Cup, Brazil’s Sócrates’s resistance against military dictatorship in his country in the 1980s, and Ukraine’s 1942 Dynamo Kiev squad who defied the Nazis.

WACC salutes the French players for using their right to free expression, one of the most fundamental communication rights, to take a stand for democracy, inclusion, and human rights. May others in similar positions follow their lead as the world struggles with the multiple crises of war, climate change, gender-based violence, and xenophobic rhetoric.

On December 10, 2023 the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) will be 75 years old. As a benchmark of democracy, we rightly celebrate observance of its Article 19 on freedom of opinion and expression and the right to seek, receive, and impart information.

Often overlooked, as Cees Hamelink points out in his new book Communication and Human Rights, is Article 28: “Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set out in this Declaration can be fully realized.” And that broader framework depends on the ability to communicate freely, safely, and with respect for human dignity.

Effective participation in society is founded on freedom of opinion and expression, access to information, and media freedom. And yet, according to Weaponizing the Law: Attacks on Media Freedom, a report published in April 2023 by the Thomson Reuters Foundation:

Effective participation in society is founded on freedom of opinion and expression, access to information, and media freedom.

Philip Lee

“Among the many and wide-ranging threats to media freedom that have proliferated in recent years is the mounting number of legal attacks on journalists and journalism, often used to silence public interest reporting and exert control. An array of sweeping and repressive legislative, regulatory, and other legal threats to journalists are stifling their ability to operate freely and independently, with grave repercussions for the journalists themselves and for the audiences they serve.”

Contradicting the vision of the UDHR, journalists are being threatened by abuse of defamation laws; criminalisation of criticism and social unrest; “catch-all” national security and public order offences; non-speech related crimes; and combining legal charges as a tactic to secure their conviction.

In Italy in October 2023, the Criminal Court of Rome convicted writer Roberto Saviano of libel and fined him €1,000. Initiated by current prime minister Georgia Meloni, the lawsuit came after critical comments by Saviano on the TV programme Piazzapulita about Meloni’s migration policies.

Sabrina Tucci, a spokesperson for Pen International, the global writers’ association, commented, “This verdict underscores the challenges writers and journalists face in their pursuit of free expression and reminds us of the critical importance of defending writers’ rights and freedom of speech – in Italy and beyond.”

Also in late October 2023, Chinese authorities in Hong Kong denied a visa to Rowena He, an eminent scholar of China’s Tiananmen Square crackdown, preventing her from returning to her teaching post at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. China is not alone in cracking down on independent journalists and academics who criticize the regime, all of whom risk reprisals.

People’s right to communicate is underpinned by media freedom, which requires constant vigilance and accountability if democracy is to flourish.

Philip Lee

The Thomson Reuters report calls on advocacy groups, the legal community, democratic governments, intergovernmental organizations, and journalists themselves to play a key role in responding to this phenomenon. “Sustained international attention, tangible government action to curb negative legislative trends, and expanded access to legal support to prevent and defend against these threats are urgently needed.”

While celebrating the spirit of the UDHR, complacency is not an option when it comes to achieving its overriding aim: universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms. People’s right to communicate is underpinned by media freedom, which requires constant vigilance and accountability if democracy is to flourish.

Photo: Zieusin/Shutterstock

As the effects of climate change accelerate, we must remember that they will not be felt equally across the world. Low-income communities in the South, such as Indigenous peoples, family farmers, the urban poor, rural women are expected to be far more affected by climate change than people living in higher latitudes in wealthier countries despite having played almost no role in contributing to it. This is because of changing agricultural zones, precipitation patterns, and strain on poor urban infrastructure, among other factors.

Yet, many of the communities in the South most impacted by the effects of climate change are at the forefront of environmental and climate struggles.¹ We might even argue that local struggles to halt extractive projects, such as the construction of new oil and gas infrastructure, often led by Indigenous and rural communities, may just represent our best hope to stop emissions in light of the ongoing failure of governments and corporations to do so.

Unfortunately, we barely hear their voices and concerns in the media. Indigenous communities and grassroots leaders at the forefront of the fight against the climate crisis are struggling to make their voices heard in political and media spheres. Indigenous people might get media attention for their clothes, culture, or spirituality but rarely for their political actions, which increasingly take the form of calls for climate justice.² On the contrary, corporate media often presents Indigenous people as “living in the past and enjoying underserved special rights”³ and colonial stereotypes are rampant. These issues are symptomatic of the many economic, institutional, and political barriers that impede the meaningful participation of Indigenous, rural, and marginalized communities in society.

In this context, the promotion of communication rights, which in essence consists of calling for the democratization of media, communication, and information systems around the world, becomes essential to dealing with climate justice. Unless the people leading the fight against the climate crisis on the ground, such as Indigenous and other vulnerable communities, are able to have their stories heard and seen by the broader public, it will be very difficult to generate the political will at the national and international level to take immediate action to tackle this crisis.

Communication rights and climate justice activists should work together to advance actions such as building connections between grassroots climate activists and media houses; promoting greater access to media, the Internet, and ICTs among Indigenous and marginalized communities; calling for the allocation of broadcasting licenses to community-based groups; and building the capacity of Indigenous and other grassroots communities to engage with media.

For the majority of people, information about climate change and how to deal with it comes from media and news sources. The media have the power to “steer” political debate and policy decisions⁴ and as such, media activism in favour of climate justice should be seen as a major element of the struggle to tackle the crisis.

1. Meynen, Nick. Frontlines: Stories of Global Environmental Justice. Zero Books, 2020.
2. Roosvall, Anna, and Matthew Tegelberg. Media and Transnational Climate Justice. Bern, Switzerland, Peter Lang, 2018.
3. Klein, Naomi. This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate. Toronto, Vintage Canada, 2015.
4. Roosvall, Anna, and Matthew Tegelberg. Media and Transnational Climate Justice. Bern, Switzerland, Peter Lang, 2018.

Photo: https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/social/indigenous-media-zone-1st.html

• The Covid-19 pandemic appears to have increased trust in mainstream news – at least back to 2018 levels.
• Three quarters of the survey respondents indicate that despite increases in partisan news options, they prefer to follow news that “reflects a range of views and lets them decide what to think.”
• There are “significant” increases in people paying for online news in some Western countries. In the United States and Norway, up to half of paid subscribers pay for multiple subscriptions, often to local or regional newspaper brands.

However, the report, which is based on data from a YouGov survey of over 92,000 online news consumers in 46 markets, also highlights the changes and challenges facing news agencies.

• More people see the value of local and regional news limited to a small number of subjects and instead rely on internet searches for weather, housing, jobs and entertainment information that used to be part of the local news “bundle”.
• Many more young people are using social media for news, including via influencers. TikTok reaches a quarter of under 35s, with an average of 7% using it for news.
• There are signs that some “are turning away from the news media and in some cases avoiding news altogether”.
• Media are seen to represent young people – and especially young women – as well as political partisans and minority ethnic groups – “less fairly”.

All these are signs of the increasing competition and complexity of the news and information environment that need equivalent complex and creative solutions. But the fundamentals may remain the same:

• The value of diverse, independent news sources.
• The need to prioritize media literacy – particularly digital media literacy – along with protecting freedom of expression.
• Equitable distribution of income from news and data.
• The importance of offline communities to online behaviour.

It is the latter that, while harder to address, perhaps needs to be incorporated more in discussions around regulating digital platforms and protecting quality journalism. As noted in the report in the changes faced by local news agencies, Dr Anne Schulz states, “We have to consider that, while a well-functioning local news ecology can create community attachment, community attachment can also create demand for local news. And surely, where community attachment is missing to begin with, local and regional media will always have it harder.”

In our increasingly online environment, grown substantially during the Covid-19 pandemic, what is the state of our own “community”? How can we strengthen the local – the value of dialogue, care of place, friendship, and commitment – so that our digital media more accurately reflect, rather than drive, the world we want to see?

Photo: Peera_stockfoto/Shutterstock

The United Kingdom appears to be trying to wriggle out of applying the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to its post-Brexit existence as a non-member of the European Union (EU).

While claiming that it still backs the treaty – which the United Kingdom ratified in 1951 – the British government does not want it to form a legally binding part of a future EU-UK trade agreement.

It appears the UK is trying to avoid the responsibilities that go with an agreement that predates the Treaty of Rome (1957) which eventually led to the creation of the EU itself. Linking trade agreements to human rights is normal practice for obvious reasons. The ECHR underpins a number of areas where trade regulations might easily come into conflict with people’s fundamental rights.

What has this to do with communications? Many rights-based treaties include a provision guaranteeing access to information and knowledge. The ECHR stipulates that, “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.”

Straightforward as it sounds, refusing to tie trade regulations to human rights might also jeopardise people’s rights in relation to such issues as security, privacy, and – in a world that runs on data processing – personal information. Data about taxation, healthcare, and pensions are just three areas open to infringement.

But communication rights, of which freedom of expression and opinion is a key part, cover a multitude of other issues that have individual, social, economic, and political implications and that constitute important elements of trade relations. One example is the highly lucrative global business in intellectual property rights, which are enforced as trading rights and not as cultural rights – which would otherwise be protected under human rights legislation.

If the United Kingdom backslides on its commitment to the ECHR, it might also renege on other fundamental commitments, damaging Britain’s standing in the world and its reputation as a leading advocate (although not entirely uncontested) of democratic accountability and global human rights.

That might also threaten the rights of the British people. Unlike in many other countries, and despite calls for change, the British are not protected by constitutional guarantees or a modern bill of rights. Food for thought.

Photo above: View through trees of the European Court of Human Rights building in Strasbourg France and Ill river. ECHR court established the European Convention on Human Rights. Photo: Hadrian/Shutterstock