Evening star., 1951-04-15

(The author of this article,
| an editor OF the Minneapolis
Tribune, aUas United States
delegate on the United Ma
tions committee engaged in
drafting the Conuention on
Freedom OF Information. The
article iUas a0ritten for the
Saturday ReDieiD of LiterG-
ttire and is reprinted by their
permission
international negotiations or dis
cussionS have evinced such strong
support for free principles and
practices as found in the Geneva
draft on newsgathering.
Since then those who fear or
loathe freedom have been doing
their utmost to impose limitations
upon the freedoms favored at
Geneva. There has been system
attic campaign to convince peo-
pie that their peace and security
Iare endangered by freedom of in
formation, that acquiescence in
censorship and other restrictions
would be to their best interest.
The number of governments ac-
lively interested in restricting
freedom Of information has in
creased. The number willing to
take a stand alongside the United
States in defense of such freedom
as still obtains has dwindled.
One could see this tendency
quite clearly just one year after
the Geneva Conference. In April.
1949. the Geneva document came
before the General Assembly
There followed persistent effort
to whittle away this convention
lon newsgathering. Many govern
|ments wanted to incorporate re-
Istrictions of one kind or another.
There was talk of imposing
duties" of legal character upon
information agencies and foreign
correspondents.
Guarantees Are Deceivine
To date those governments have
prevented the newSgathering con-
vention from being opened for sig
nature and thus becoming opera
tive. 1t must now wait pending
adoption of the convention on
freedom Of information.
AS contrasted with the limited
scope of the newsgathering con-
vention, the proposed conventionI
on freedom of information is of
very wide scope. The newsgath-t
ering convention merely facilitates
the work of foreign correspondents
as limited group. The conven-
ton on freedom of information
purports that contracting states
shall secure to all of their own
nationals and to the nationals of
other contracting states who are
in their territories certain broad
rights to freedom Of information.
Among these are the right to seek,
to receive and to impart informa-
ton and opinions.
At first glance this would ap-
pear to be a worthy purpose. The
catch is that restriction minded
governments insist upon legalizing
very broad limitations upon free
dom to seek, to receive and to i'm
part information, under the guise
of guaranteeing" such freedoms.
Having failed to incorporate salts
factory restrictions on the gather
ing and transmission Of news into
the newsgathering convention. re-
striction-minded governments are
trying to write very comprehensive
restrictions on news-gathering
into the freedom of Inf nformationE
convention.
There has been SO much talk
about news-gathering and news
papers that many people think Of
the freedom information issue
as exclusively a press association
and newspaper concern. But any,
thing which seriously limits the
amount of news available in times
like the present should be the con-
cern of every one. Without ade-
quate information about what goes
on abroad, the American people,
ultimate arbiters of American ma
tional politics. will not be in a po-
sition to make wise decisions.
u. S. Opposes Gags
Freedom of information is the
by which common, every
day citizens seek and receive in
formation about their work, in
cluding new methods of work;
about their living conditions, good
or bad, and the reasons for them;
about their local officials, their
State and national governments. |
It is the process by which they
reach their decisions and make
them felt by those who govern.
The United States delegation to
the United Nations Committee on
Freedom Of Information unsuc-
cessfully sought to persuade al
majority of the IA other nations
represented to draft a convention
those concepts. tt
sought to persuade the committee
that freedom of information is one
Of those vital areas of the demo-
cratic process which must remain
as far as possible immune from
governmental interference.
Conceding that there must be
certain restraints upon freedom of
information to prevent abuses, the
United States delegation insisted
that such limitations must never
go so far as to impair the basic
freedom. Wherever possible, t
the United States delegation in
sisted. such limitations as are
imposed must operate after the
fact. as means of penalizingI
proved and serious abuses and not
as prior gag on free speech. HE
The Drafting Committee, heavily
weighted with restrictions, rejected
this approach. The United States