Right of reply is the right to defend oneself against public criticism in the same media in which the criticism was aired. Article 19, an international organisation for freedom of expression, elaborates:

There are two basic categories of the right to reply. The first, which could more exactly be called a ‘right of correction’, is limited to a right to point out erroneous information; the media outlet’s editors are required to correct the mistake, but may do so in their own words.

The second is a right for the aggrieved individual to demand newspaper space or broadcast time from the media outlet in order to ‘set the record straight’. This second manifestation of the right of reply clearly constitutes a far greater interference with the ‘right not to speak’.[i]

The idea of creating legally enforceable right of reply or correction has never found much favour with freedom of expression campaigners. They fear that it might stifle free and robust expression, and violate the prerogative of editors to decide what and what not to publish - clearly something that is particularly needed in the context of elections. However, both international advisory bodies and national courts have sometimes favoured such a mechanism, especially in instances where the criticism in question originates from government-controlled media, to which the opposition may have limited access.

The American Convention on Human Rights requires its state parties to introduce either a right of reply or a right of correction. Article 14 states:

1. Anyone injured by inaccurate or offensive statements or ideas disseminated to the public in general by a legally regulated medium of communication has the right to reply or to make a correction using the same communications outlet, under such conditions as the law may establish.

2. The correction or reply shall not in any case remit other legal liabilities that may have been incurred.[ii]

The European human rights system, too, recognises the virtue of the right of reply. In a case in 1989, the European Commission of Human Rights stated “in a democratic society, the right of reply constitutes a guarantee of the pluralism of information which must be respected.”

The UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression has cautioned against a government-mandated right of reply, and stated that the right should in any case be limited to allegedly false facts:

The Special Rapporteur is of the view that if a right of reply system is to exist, it should ideally be part of the industry’s self-regulated system, and in any case can only feasibly apply to facts and not to opinions.[iii]

In some instances, right of reply is applied more forcefully to public media. The High Court and Court of Appeal in Belize found in favour of a right of reply in a case with a particular relevance to elections. The Belize Broadcasting Authority (BBA) had refused permission to a senior opposition politician and the director of a television station to broadcast a series of programmes replying to government statements on the economy. The High Court ruled that the BBA had acted arbitrarily, stating:

Today television is the most powerful medium for communications, ideas and disseminating information. The enjoyment of freedom of expression therefore includes freedom to use such a medium.[iv]

The Court of Appeal supported the High Court's ruling and held that the BBA's refusal to broadcast the programmes violated the applicants' constitutional rights to both freedom of expression and protection from discrimination. Political parties must be given the opportunity to reply on television to statements made by the government that "provide information or explanation of events of prime national or international importance or ... seek the co-operation of the public in connection with such events." Only where there was a "general consensus of opinion" would the opposition not have a right of reply.[v]