Abstract
Kazakhstan, 21 November, the army invades the premises of the independent TV channel KTK. Nepal, 29 November, arrests of eight journalists on application of emergency state after September the 11th. India and Canada, new laws represent a danger on secret of authorities. Australia, interdiction of the medias around a centre that accommodate afghan and Pakistanis refugees. Russia, an imprecise new law previous to struggle against “the terrorist propaganda in medias”… The list is long: so were reactions of some governments all over the world after the terrorist attacks of September the 11th.
Censorship, silencing the enemy, refusing critics…are classical reflexes in wartime. What is happening in our democracies? Washington summons medias and reminds them their “responsibilities” on information at this time. The CSA in France (medias controls organ) offered “advices” to the radios and TV channel. Tony Blair asks the medias to choose their side and to “make the distinction between truth and lies” (AFP, 9/11). Do fighting against terrorism justify that one of the most important human right – liberty of expression and of press – get divide? Most of the governments mention the security of the states and the defence of national interest to legitimate restrictions of liberties and censorship. Do these principles not rather hide censor of the opponents, propaganda and manipulation of medias? Censorship nowadays takes few dimensions in the “global village”: traditional state censorship is not enough; today control of information becomes crucial in the conflict.
