Participation in a University of one of the political leaders Forum novice and populist of recent decades, coupled with the interrogation a journalist at headquarters of courts and other intervention I've had these days with similar professional forces and State security bodies, make today to return to the issue of freedom of information; not of expression.
The last of my users of legal services swallowed and swallowed until I came to the police station. "Kindly" insisted you up to more than ten times that you unveil or reveal the source of the information that had motivated his written opinion, in a medium of dissemination article, and that was something of an Andean country papers. My client did not do so. He didn't say who was it told. It claimed the right to preserve the source. He ignored me. I congratulate him. I miss him a pair. Believe me.
By that and by that I will begin to dust off some of the approach that I have argued in courts – understand courts, halls of Justice and police headquarters – in defense of the freedom of information and, in sum, in defense of those who exercise it: journalists.
For now, understand that these letters are very localised to the public for which it is intended. It is for them, for those who reported. And not to leave to do so. Then, each of which is Lord believe what they write is or they have. But never stop doing so. By hygiene. And also because we feel so free. It should look something to the past to understand the present and that don't leave us in the hands of the future. We recall that freedom of information was developed by the doctrine from World War II. With a clear intention: overcoming the inadequacies of liberal thought.
Criticism is offset to the liberal model of the time and adapt its content to the new model of political organization that represented the Social status. And who today seek to destroy and not is if you succeed. I question it from me, as I feel the pulse.
Without doubt, and in my view, writing in strict terms of legal positivism, freedom of information derived from the freedom of expression, which is an inherent element. I have thus raised loud not infrequently on the occasion of my final conclusions the high national courts.
And, friends, readers, is a freedom indispensable for the attainment of other rights and freedoms. Or, at least, that we enjoy today.
From this perspective, the majority of the doctrine, relying on art. 19 of the Universal Declaration of human rights, tilts clearly to define freedom of information as the freedom to find, disseminate and receive information and ideas freely. That wonder! Although the process is very different. They know it. The journalists, who are those running broadcast fruit of his work. And I'm talking about journalists in the broad sense, not in the academic or which includes the titulitis. As the teeth do not the lion. A robe to a lawyer.
But to legally recognize freedom of information is not enough to assert that their exercise is fully guaranteed. It was necessary, and it will remain so, provide us with legal measures to make this real and effective. And pass the period of adaptation to social needs that arise from the role of information in the current socio-political time.
In any case, what is really important, today, is the content of freedom of information. And is concrete – nuances – on three sovereignties, which I call the freedom of information, freedom of information and freedom of information. In short, the freedom, finally and after.