INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS STANDARDS

"[P]ublic order in a democratic society requires the guarantee of the widest possible circulation of news, ideas and opinons as well as the widest access to information by society as a whole. Freedom of expression constitutes the primary and basic element of the public order of a democratic society, which is not conceivable without free debate and the possibility that dissenting voices be fully heard."

-Inter-American Court of Human Rights Advisory Opinion OC-5/85 November 13, 1985

It has long been recognized that the state has a legitimate interest in regulation of the broadcasting industry through a licensing system that allocates frequency bands for radio stations and television channels. The "traffic cop" role of government in allocating broadcast frequencies for radio and television is widely recognized. In this role, governments select and license entities to use particular frequencies, undertaking this effort to ensure clear reception, satisfy technical standards, and prevent mutual interference among broadcasts within and across national borders. The selection of one candidate for a broadcast license over another determines control of the channel, and the government's choices may influence or determine the content that is aired. In some countries, various doctrinal criteria for granting broadcast licenses, such as preventing one set of interests or viewpoints from dominating the airwaves to the exclusion of others, also justify the government's choices.

Precisely because radio and television are the most powerful channels for mass communication in modern society, state regulation can raise important concerns about freedom of expression, including obstacles to the dissemination of a wide spectrum of views, and the right to receive information, ideas and opinions from a diversity of sources. From a human rights perspective, the exercise of regulatory power over the broadcasting industry must be compatible with the provisions of Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 19 provides:

1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.

2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:

(a) For respect of the rights or reputation of others;

(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.

Governments have a duty to both broadcasters and listening audiences to ensure that the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, as required by Article 19, is guaranteed. In addition, these freedoms should be ensured "without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status," as required by Article 2 of the ICCPR. A government may not use broadcast licensing schemes to discriminate against applicants because of their religion or political views, any more than a government is entitled to permit only its political supporters to use the streets for peaceful public assembly. Media pluralism therefore entails both access to broadcasting media by all parts of the community and the broadcasting of a diversity of views. The Lebanese government's actions in September 1996 to regulate television and radio broadcasting are in violation of international human rights standards in several important respects.

Lebanon's 1994 broadcasting law, which ended the state's legal monopoly on the airwaves and paved the way for the licensing of privately owned radio and television stations, recognized the freedom of the media, and "the pluralistic nature of the expression of ideas and opinions." The cabinet's implementation of the broadcasting law, however, left the country with only four licensed privately owned television stations, all of them linked directly or indirectly to leading government officials and pro-Syrian political figures. In addition, only three of the eleven radio stations granted broadcasting licenses are permitted to air news and political programs. The stations not awarded licenses were allowed to continue operating - for an unspecified period, as of this writing-but were barred from broadcasting news and "direct or indirect" political programs. Taken together, these decisions provide persuasive evidence that the government's intent is to restrict media pluralism and curtail free expression, particularly as it relates to political reporting and commentary about its foreign and domestic policies.

The Lebanese government, in regulating broadcasting in such a way as to protect and foster freedom of expression, has a duty to be neutral with respect to the political, ethnic or religious profile of broadcasters. It also has a duty to ensure that regulation does not unnecessarily inhibit the free exchange of ideas and information, including the reporting of news, political analysis, and other programming of a political nature. If the licensing process effectively excludes stations with political views divergent from those of the ruling powers-creating a public perception that government officials are "licensing themselves" to the exclusion of others-then the presumption of a serious violation of the right to free expression is justified. Human Rights Watch believes that the fairness and impartiality of the state's licensing regime is compromised because decision making is in the hands of the cabinet. We recommend that the government establish a broadcasting regulatory authority that is independent of the executive branch, in order to ensure that decision making is untainted by political considerations and that the "pluralistic nature of the expression of ideas and opinions," as envisioned in Lebanon's broadcasting law and as required under international human rights law, is protected.

The broadcasting law and decree also raise conflicts with internationally recognized norms of free expression in their attempts to regulate and restrict the content of broadcasts. Article 19(3) of the ICCPR allows restriction of expression only in limited circumstances, namely in the interest of "respect of the rights or reputations of others"or "the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public) or of public health or morals. Such restrictions must be "provided by law" and be "necessary." These exceptions are narrowly framed. Restrictions to protect national security, for instance, are permissible only in serious cases of political or military threat to the entire nation.71 The burden of demonstrating the vailidity of the restriction rests with the state. Similarly, the concept of public order can be used to to curb expression in order to prevent an imminent threat to the peace, disorder or crime. In the absence of compelling justifications along these lines by the government of Lebanon, the following restrictions create unacceptable infringements on the right to free expression:

· There is no justification for discriminating between different categories of private radio and television stations - between those that may broadcast news and political programming and those that may not. This provision restricts broadcasters' freedom to impart, and listeners' ability to receive, information about public affairs. The provision discriminates between political "haves" and "have-nots." Whatever its ostensible purpose, this restriction can too easily be abused to stifle competing or challenging views and to exert pressure for support of government policies and officials.

· Nor is there a compelling or even persuasive reason to limit those stations that may air news to one thirty-minute broadcast daily. This limits unreasonably, and for no valid public purpose, the dissemination of information.

· Other sweeping content restrictions include the ban on live broadcasts of unauthorized political gatherings and certain religious events, and the prohibition of broadcasting "any matter of commentary seeking to affect directly or indirectly the well-being of the nation's economy and finances," and material that "is propagandistic and promotional," or "promotes a relationship with the Zionist enemy [the State of Israel]." Such broad and vaguely worded proscriptions appear designed to stifle dissemination of a wide range of news, information, and ideas, well beyond the restrictions permissible under Article 19(3) of the ICCPR.