History

The concept of the right to communicate began in 1969 with Jean D’Arcy, a pioneer in French
and European television in the 1950s and by 1969 Director of the United Nations Radio and
Visual Services Division, where he was involved in international policy discussions arising out
of the recent innovations in satellite global communications. He recognized that the
communication rights relating to freedom of expression embodied in the U. N. Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) adopted in 1948 would need to be re-examined in the
context of global, interactive communication between individuals and communities. He called
for the need for the recognition of a human right to communicate that would encompass earlier
established rights.[2] He thus was the first to link communication and universal human rights. His
call was taken up by academics, policy experts, and public servants who evolved into the Right
to Communicate Group, the many non-governmental and civil society organisations that made
up the Platform for Co-operation on Communication and Democratisation, and the
Communication Rights in the Information Society (CRIS) Campaign.

The first broad-based debate on media and communication globally, limited mainly to
governments, ran for a decade from the mid-1970s. Governments of the South, by then a
majority in the UN, began voicing demands in UNESCO concerning media concentration, the
flow of news, and ‘cultural imperialism’. The MacBride Report (1981) studied the problem,
articulating a general ‘right to communicate’. The debate was compromised, however, by Cold
War rhetoric, and fell apart after the US and the UK pulled out of UNESCO.

The MacBride Report became unavailable until the World Association for Christian
Communication (WACC) sponsored its republication in 1988. WACC held the secretariat of the
CRIS Campaign 2000–05.

Interest in the right to communicate languished during the 1980s as there was no mass movement
to promote it for the simple reason few people had direct experience with interactive
communication over global electronic networks. This situation changed dramatically in the
1990s with a cluster of innovations that included the Internet, the World Wide Web, search
engines, availability of personal computers, and social networking. As more people participated
in interactive communication and the many challenges it raised in regard to such communication
rights as free of speech, privacy, and freedom of information, they began to develop a growing
consciousness of the importance of such rights to their ability to communicate.

A result of this growing communicative consciousness is a renewed research interest in and

political advocacy for a right to communicate (see references). From the 1990s onwards, NGOs
and activists[who?] became increasingly active in a variety of communication issues, from
community media, to language rights, to copyright, to Internet provision and free and open
source software. These coalesced in a number of umbrella groups tackling inter-related issues
from which the pluralistic notion of communication rights began to take shape, this time from the
ground up.

More recently, the International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology published a special issue
on communication rights stating "Communication rights address both “freedom of opinion and
expression” and rights and freedoms “without distinction of … language” (United Nations,
1948)" [3] The special issue addressed communication rights from four perspectives: (1)
communication rights of all people; (2) communication rights of people with communication
disabilities; (3) communication rights of children and (4) communication rights relating to
language. The Universal Declaration of Communication Rights (International Communication
Project, 2014) has been signed by over 10 000 people and states: "We recognise that the ability
to communicate is a basic human right. We recognise that everyone has the potential to
communicate. By putting our names to this declaration, we give our support to the millions of
people around the world who have communication disorders that prevent them from
experiencing fulfilling lives and participating equally and fully in their communities. We believe
that people with communication disabilities should have access to the support they need to
realise their full potential." [4]

Four pillars
Each Pillar [of Communication Rights] relates to a different domain of social existence,
experience and practice, in which communication is a core activity and performs key functions.
The rational [sic] for the four [pillars is,] that each involves a relatively autonomous sphere of
social action, yet depends on the others for achieving its ultimate goal - they are necessary
interlocking blocks in the struggle to achieve communication rights. Action can be coherently
pursued under, each, often in collaboration with other social actors concerned with the area more
generally; while bridges can and must be built to the other areas if the goal is to be achieved.[5]

Communicating in the public sphere

"The role of communication and media in exercising democratic political participation in society.
But while the fake and concocted news are broadcast by different media to take the financial
favor of the state is highly dangerous. This tendency is developed in 21st century irrespective of
any nations around the world. And the legal provision and its implementation part is also very
much weak and governed by the will of the state. Free and fair journalism does not refer and
mean to publish and broadcast untrue and purposefully concocted news.