Hey Grace & Kerubo,
Thanks for your summary overview. I wonder aloud whether it
should only be the state that maintains this monopoly over
accessibility to basic information in as far
as "Freedom of information" is
concerned.
Whereas state has the instruments it can use to either promote
or curtail such freedoms, I suppose it would also be safe
to say that in quite a number of instances, state might
be deemed a "lame duck".
How about a remote Island sequestered somewhere, about 200
miles off the shores of Lake Victoria with no basic access
to communication?
Would the populace there's lack thereof, of basic information access
be considered an infringement on this fundamental
right/liberty by the state...?
Harry
Thanks Harry Delano, Washington, Cleophas and Kerubo.
Harry you raise a good question on what these terms mean and
whether they are interchangeable.
Washington, you make an
important point about freedom of expression/speech not being absolute, and
Cleophas affirms your point.
Thanks Kerubo for the
definitions. Yes, freedom of information simply means the
freedom to get certain basic information held by the state, which can enable one
to for example bring a case of human rights violation or any other cause.
Freedom of expression can mean many things, say freedom to air
your ideas, take a stand, artistic creativity--simply freedom to express
how you feel. And of course as Washington and Cleophas rightly point
out, all these freedoms are subject to limitations and therefore not carte
blanche.
In this case then:
- Is there conflict between laws on freedom of information and what citizens
demand/require?
Lets hear it from
you.
Rgds
Grace