Fight against terrorism justifies a degree of censorship. Discuss.

Résumé du document

Kazakhstan, 21 November, the army invades the premises of the independent TV channel KTK. Nepal, 29 November, arrests of eight journalists on application of emergency state after September the 11th. India and Canada, new laws represent a danger on secret of authorities. Australia, interdiction of the medias around a centre that accommodate afghan and Pakistanis refugees. Russia, an imprecise new law previous to struggle against “the terrorist propaganda in medias”… The list is long: so were reactions of some governments all over the world after the terrorist attacks of September the 11th.
Censorship, silencing the enemy, refusing critics…are classical reflexes in wartime. What is happening in our democracies? Washington summons medias and reminds them their “responsibilities” on information at this time. The CSA in France (medias controls organ) offered “advices” to the radios and TV channel. Tony Blair asks the medias to choose their side and to “make the distinction between truth and lies” (AFP, 9/11). Do fighting against terrorism justify that one of the most important human right – liberty of expression and of press – get divide? Most of the governments mention the security of the states and the defence of national interest to legitimate restrictions of liberties and censorship. Do these principles not rather hide censor of the opponents, propaganda and manipulation of medias? Censorship nowadays takes few dimensions in the “global village”: traditional state censorship is not enough; today control of information becomes crucial in the conflict.

Extraits

[...] Do fighting against terrorism justify that one of the most important human right liberty of expression and of press get divide? Most of the governments mention the security of the states and the defence of national interest to legitimate restrictions of liberties and censorship. Do these principles not rather hide censor of the opponents, propaganda and manipulation of medias? Censorship nowadays takes few dimensions in the “global village”: traditional state censorship is not enough; today control of information becomes crucial in the conflict. [...]

[...] Washington also totally condemned the rhetoric” (12 October) of the channel. Pressures were putting on Qatar state (where is based Al-Jazeera) to use authority to influence Al-Jazeera's behaviour. Accused to support Talibans regime, the channel claimed offering expression to both side as an independent media. Other side, the USA always affirms they are ready to give interviews to the Arabic channel. Ahmed Kamal, journalist for Al-Jazzera in Bruxelles was arrested when he had to cover the OMC meeting in October. [...]

[...] Even countries of the “coalition against terrorism” were surprised when the US announced they would use “disinformation” and “tactic manipulation” (Reporter Sans Frontieres, 21/02). Washington declared USA will possibly give “wrong information to foreign medias in the aim to influence public opinion” (Reporter Sans Frontieres, 21/02). Even if the United States denounced Ben Laden's propaganda, they will use as well propaganda and disinformation. Reactions all around the world were immediate. Robert Fisk writes in The Independent (10 November): campaign? Armed coalition? [...]

[...] But the first censorship is on the field. As Elizabeth Becker writes in The NEW York Times the authorities have enforced policies ensuring that journalists have little or no access to independent information about military strategies, success and failures”. whole generation of military officers grew up believing that the press was the problem, if not the enemy,” added Don Oberdorfer, diplomatic and military correspondent for The Washington Post. On the field, Jean-Paul Guilloteau, photo-reporter for L'Express, testify for Le Monde (27/10) think USA asked the North Alliance to control medias as much as possible. [...]

[...] Strange vision of information to react only with the topic of concurrence. Did they try to answer to the problem that an Al-Jazzera's journalist asked to Condoleezza Rice, adviser of President Bush: phoned my director in the aim we don't broadcast Al-Quaida's videos; in the Arabic world, it was seen as censorship”. As well, during the bomb campaign in Afghanistan, all information given by the Talibans regime was disqualified. “Four employees of the UNO were killed after US attacks” (8/10). [...]