‘It is not good for the person to be alone’ 1 : The capabilities approach and the right to communicate

Abstract

For decades, attempts have been made to define a ‘right to communicate’. The rise of media technologies, which are characterized by abundance of channels and information, interactivity, mobility, and multimediated messaging, has allowed to rethink this right in a context converging traditional media and telecommunications and referring to communicating as an essential human capability. Applying Amartya Sen’s capabilities approach to communications, we argue that communicating is a capability required to realize such functionings as participating in political, cultural, social, educational, and commercial life and is essential to promote belonging to a collective. The ‘negative’ right to free speech should be replaced by a positive right to communicate, which should include free speech, access to information, privacy, and utilization of communications in order to belong to a community.

Keywords

Capabilities free speech functionings new media right to communicate

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alexander

(2005) Is There a Right of Freedom of Expression? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Barron

(1967) Access to the press—A new first amendment right. Harvard Law Review 80: 1641–1678.

BBC (2009) Finland makes 1 Mb broadband access a legal right. BBC July 1. Available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/10461048 (accessed 4 December 2020).

Britz

Hoffmann

Ponelis

, et al. (2012) On considering the application of Amartya Sen’s capability approach to an information-based rights framework. Information Development 29(2): 106–113.

Buchanan

(2000) Justice, legitimacy and human rights. In: Davion

Wolf

(eds) The Idea of a Political Liberalism: Essays on Rawls. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 73–89.

Carpentier

(2015) Differentiating between access, interaction and participation. Conjunctions: Transdisciplinary Journal of Cultural Participation 2(2): 7–28.

Castells

(2007) Communication, power and counter-power in the network society. International Journal of Communication 1: 238–266.

Constitution of Greece (2009) Article 5A(2). Available at: https://www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws/en/gr/gr220en.pdf (accessed 3 December 2020).

Couldry

(2010) Why Voice Matters: Culture and Politics After Neoliberalism. Los Angeles: SAGE.

10.

Daily

Mail

(2009) https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1192359/Internet-access-fundamental-human-right-rules-French-court.html.

11.

d’Arcy

(1969) Direct broadcast satellites and the right of man to communicate. EBU Review 118: 14–18.

12.

Deuze

(2006) Participation, remediation, bricolage: Considering principal components of a digital culture. The Information Society 22: 63–75.

13.

Dreze

Sen

(1989) Hunger and Public Action. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

14.

Fisher

(1982) The Right to Communicate: A Status Report. Paris: UNESCO. Available at: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0005/000503/050335eo.pdf (accessed 3 December 2020).

15.

Garnham

(1999) Amartya Sen’s “capabilities” approach to the evaluation of welfare: Its application to communications. In: Calabrese

Brugleman

(eds) Communication, Citizenship and Social Policy. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 113–124.

16.

Garnham

(2001). Universal service. In Melody

(Ed) Telecom reform: Principles, policies and regulatory practices. Lyngsby: Technical University of Denmark, pp. 199–204.

17.

Glendon

(2004) The rule of law in the universal declaration of human rights. Northwestern Journal of International Human Rights 2(1): 1–19.

18.

Gorecki

(1989) Human nature and the justification of human rights. American Journal of. Jurisprudence 34(1): 43–60.

19.

Hargittai

(2002) Second-level digital divide: Differences in people’s online skills. First Monday 7(4). Available at: http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/942/864 (accessed 3 December 2020).

20.

Hutchins

(1947) A Free and Responsible Press: A General Report on Mass Communication: Newspapers, Radio, Motion Pictures, Magazines, and Books. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

21.

Jenkins

(2019) Participatory Culture: Interviews. Cambridge and Medford, MA: Polity Press.

22.

Longstaff

(2002) The Communications Toolkit: How to Build and Regulate Any Communications Business. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

23.

MacBride

(1980) Many Voices One World: Report by The International Commission for The Study of Communication Problems. Paris: UNESCO.

24.

Mansell

(2002) From digital divides to digital entitlements in knowledge societies. Current Sociology 50(3): 407–426.

25.

Mill

(1863) Utilitarianism (Alex Catalogue of Electronic Texts) (1863). Available at: http://infomotions.com/etexts/philosophy/1800-1899/mill-utilitarianism-218.htm (accessed 3 December 2020).

26.

Min

S-J

(2010) From the digital divide to the democratic divide: Internet skills, political interest, and the second-level digital divide in political internet use. Journal of Information Technology & Politics 7: 22–35.

27.

Nussbaum

(1997) Capabilities and human rights. Fordham Law Review 66: 273–300.

28.

Nussbaum

(2003) Capabilities as fundamental entitlements: Sen and social justice. Feminist Economics 9(2-3): 33–59.

29.

Rawls

(1971) A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University.

30.

Rawls

(1999) Collected Papers. In: Freeman

(ed) Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

31.

Reuters (2009) Spain govt to guarantee legal right to broadband. Reuters November 17. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/article/spain-telecoms-idUSLH61554320091117 (accessed 4 December 2020).

32.

Sanders

(1991) Collective rights. Human Rights Quarterly 13: 368–386.

33.

Schejter

(2009a) International benchmarks: The crisis in U.S. communications policy through a comparative lens. In: Schejter

(ed) “…and Communications for all”: A Policy Agenda for a New Administration. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, pp. 57–77.

34.

Schejter

(2009b) “From all my teachers I have grown wise, and from my students more than anyone else”: What lessons can the US learn from broadband policies in Europe? International Communication Gazette 71(5): 429–445.

35.

Schejter

Ben Harush

Tirosh

(2017) The effect of the transformation in digital media on the digital divide. In: Friedrichsen

Kamalipour

(eds) Digital Transformation in Journalism and News Media: Media Management, Media Convergence and Globalization. Berlin: Springer, pp. 235–246.

36.

Schejter

Tirosh

(2014) New media policy: The redistribution of voice. In: Liu

Picard

(eds) Policy and Marketing Strategies for Digital Media. London: Routledge, pp. 73–86.

37.

Schejter

Tirosh

(2015) “Seek the meek, seek the just”: Social media and social justice. Telecommunications Policy 39: 796–803.

38.

Schejter

Tirosh

(2016) A Justice-Based Approach for New Media Policy: In the Paths of Righteousness. London: Palgrave-MacMillan.

39.

Schejter

Yemini

(2007) ‘Justice, and only justice, you shall pursue:’ Network neutrality, the First Amendment and John Rawls’ Theory of Justice. Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review 14(1): 137–174.

40.

Sen

(1980) Equality of what? In: McMurring

(ed) Tanner Lectures on Human Values (Vol. I). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 197–220.

41.

Sen

(1984) Resources, Values and Development. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

42.

Sen

(1985) Rights as goals. In: Guest

Milne

(eds) Equality and Discrimination: Essays in Freedom and Justice. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag Wiesbaden GMBH, pp. 11–26.

43.

Sen

(2003 [1989]) Development as capability expansion. In: Fukuda-Parr

Shiva Kumar

(eds) Readings in Human Development. New Delhi and New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

44.

Sen

(2004a) Capabilities, lists, and public reason: Continuing the conversation. Feminist Economics 10(3): 77–80.

45.

Sen

(2004b) Elements of a theory of human rights. Philosophy & Public Affairs 32(4): 315–356.

46.

Sen

(2005) Human rights and capabilities. Journal of Human Development 6(2): 151–166.

47.

Sen

(2009). The Idea of Justice. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

48.

Siebert

Peterson

Schramm

(1956) Four Theories of the Press: The Authoritarian, Libertarian, Social Responsibility, and Soviet Communist Concepts of What the Press Should be and Do. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

49.

Sylvester

McGlynn

(2010) The digital divide, political participation, and place. Social Science Computer Review 28(1): 64–74.

50.

Toboso

(2011) Rethinking disability in Amartya Sen’s approach: ICT and equality of opportunity. Ethics and Information Technology 13: 107–118.

51.

van Deursen

Helsper

(2015) The third-level digital divide: Who benefits most from being online? Communication and Information Technologies Annual (Studies in Media and Communications, Vol. 10). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 29–52.

52.

Wei

Teo

Chan

, et al. (2011) Conceptualizing and testing a social cognitive model of the digital divide. Information Systems Research 22(1): 170–187.

53.

Woodward

(2003) Estonia, where being wired is a human right. Christian Science Monitor July 1 (accessed 4 December 2020).