The idea of creating a legally enforceable right of reply or correction has never found much favour with freedom of expression campaigners, who fear that it would stifle free and robust expression - clearly something that is particularly needed in the context of elections. However, both international advisory bodies and some national courts have favoured such a mechanism, especially when the matter being replied to is in the government-controlled media, to which the opposition may not have ready access.
This is the guideline, for example, developed by the UN Transitional Authority in Cambodia (see also Cambodia: Guidelines of UN Transitional Authority on Media and Elections):
Media outlets should give parties, groups or individuals whose views have been misrepresented or maligned by a publication or broadcast the 'right of response' in the same media outlet.23
The Indian Supreme Court recognized a right of reply that was specific to government publications, stating that 'fairness demanded that both viewpoints were placed before its readers, however limited be their number, to enable them to draw their own conclusions.'24
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) 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:
[T]oday 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.25
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 both to freedom of expression and protection from discrimination. Political parties must be given the opportunity to reply on television to statements made by the government which '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.26
See Right of Reply to Criticism or Adverse Statements.
