Is a knowledge society possible without freedom of access to information?

Peter Johan Lor International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA), The Hague, Netherlands Department of Information Science, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa

Johannes Jacobus Britz School of Information Studies, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI, USA Department of Information Science, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa

Abstract. Modern information and communication technologies (ICTs) are seen not only as allowing global economic activities and the sharing of knowledge, but also as favouring transparency and democracy by creating space and a public sphere for civil society. The internet, and in particular the world wide web, have proved a powerful tool in both the manipulation of economic activities and the mobilization of civil society. Much is made of the democratizing effect of ICTs in e-government. Yet there are governments that attempt to control in an authoritarian manner both who accesses the internet and what content may be accessed and used. The question arises whether an information society and, more critically, a knowledge society can develop in the absence of freedom of access to information, freedom of expression and freedom to access the digital economy. Against this broad background the authors put forward four pillars of a knowledge society: (a) ICTs and connectivity, (b) content and the usability thereof, (c) infrastructure other than ICTs, and (d) human capacity. They attempt to evaluate the effect of authoritarian governmental control of access and content on each of them. It is argued from an ethical perspective, and more specifically from a perspective of social justice that, while a technologically oriented concept of the information society may not be incompatible with severe state control, a more multi-dimensional knowledge society cannot develop under such circumstances. Freedom is fundamental to participation in a knowledge society. Purely pragmatic arguments lead to the same conclusion.

Keywords: knowledge society; information society; ethics; access to information; freedom of information; digital divide

Correspondence to: P.J. Lor, IFLA, P.O. Box 95312, 2509 CH The Hague, Netherlands. Email: [email protected] Journal of Information Science, 33 (4) 2007, pp. 387–397 © CILIP, DOI: 10.1177/0165551506075327

387

Peter Johan Lor and Johannes Jacobus Britz

1.

Introduction

‘Information wants to be free.’ This well-known statement originated in the so-called cyber punk culture [1]. Today it is being used as a rallying call by defenders of the information commons, engaged in the struggle against those powerful forces that would, treaty by treaty, article by article, fence off the common heritage of humankind as ‘intellectual property’. But it can equally be used as a rallying call by those committed to uphold, world-wide, the lofty principle stated in article 4 of the Declaration of Principles issued at the Geneva Summit [2]: We reaffirm, as an essential foundation of the information society, and as outlined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; that this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. Communication is a fundamental social process, a basic human need and the foundation of all social organization. It is central to the information society. Everyone, everywhere should have the opportunity to participate and no one should be excluded from the benefits the information society offers.

This paper is concerned with freedom and the information and knowledge society. We argue that the concept of an information society where the focus is mainly on information and communication technologies (ICTs) is too limited and that a fuller and richer concept is denoted by the term knowledge society where the emphasis is on content – the creation, distribution and use of information and knowledge in society – and on the development of human capacity. Our focus in this paper is on the freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas – which for brevity we will refer to as ‘freedom of information’ – through the medium of the internet, the currently pervasive communication medium of the information and knowledge society. Modern ICTs have created many opportunities for civil society, opening up space for dialogue, participation and creativity. But governments in various parts of the world see this as a threat, and take measures to control or limit access to the internet. The question we raise is whether a knowledge society can evolve in the absence of freedom of information. We take as the point of departure for our discussion the new paradigm shift towards the economics of information, which has introduced advanced and market driven capitalism as well as the process of globalization. Through globalization a network of economic and social networks is created. The gap between the rich and the poor countries is no longer limited only to a ‘physical object gap’, but has also become an ‘immaterial asset gap’, where the key immaterial assets are information or knowledge. This new ‘immaterial asset gap’ has important implications for the right of access to information. This right is no longer concerned only with freedom of opinion and expression, to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers – a right understood primarily as an intellectual right. In the era of globalization the right of access to information has become one of the most important social rights since it is a precondition for participation in the various socio-economic and political activities of a modern knowledge society. The right of access to information also has a very important bearing on knowledge production. It is our opinion that open markets and international competitiveness make it an imperative to invest in innovation and knowledge production – which necessarily implies allowing the free flow of knowledge and unhindered access to information. Research and Development (R&D) and higher education increasingly play a crucial role in knowledge production and innovation to meet these new demands. This has led to greater investment in knowledge production. The connection made here between modern capitalism and the development of information and knowledge societies raises questions of values. However, to state this connection does not constitute an argument for capitalism, neither does it imply approval of the knowledge society that is taking shape under its influence. The knowledge society is not a goal but a likely outcome of an apparently irreversible development process. The value that we introduce in this context is freedom. If a knowledge society takes shape it should be for the greater good of humanity. We shall argue that this is more likely to be the case if the human rights cited above are respected. Journal of Information Science, 33 (4) 2007, pp. 387–397 © CILIP, DOI: 10.1177/0165551506075327

388

Peter Johan Lor and Johannes Jacobus Britz

In addressing these issues we structure this paper as follows. First we discuss the terms ‘information society’ and ‘knowledge society’, indicating our preference for the latter. Following from this we identify four pillars of an information and knowledge society and argue that access to usable content and human capacity constitute the main pillars for a knowledge society. Thirdly we give a brief overview of the international race towards the information and knowledge society, focusing on the question whether societies can indeed become information and knowledge societies without allowing freedom of access to information. We then focus on the four identified pillars of information and knowledge societies. We use these pillars as criteria and discuss the importance of access to information in relation to each of them.

2.

Information society and knowledge society

The terms ‘information society’ and ‘knowledge society’ are often used interchangeably to denote a society in which: • knowledge has become the most important production factor [3–8]; • there is a culture of knowledge production underpinned by a higher level of education; and • the focus is not only on the use of modern ICTs, but also on ‘content, meaning and knowledge’ [9]. A number of knowledge society indicators have been developed [7, 10, 11]. The most popular indicators used are: • qualitative measurement of the use of, and access to, modern ICTs; • the number of scientists in a country; • the amount spent on R&D as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product; • the ability to produce and export high technology; and • the number of patents filed in a country. Currently, however, there is a trend towards the use of the term ‘knowledge society’. This reflects an often intuitive recognition that the concept of ‘information’ is perhaps too meagre to carry the weight of the far-reaching societal changes that are anticipated. ‘Knowledge’ implies a resource that is richer, more structured, more organized, more complex and more qualitative than ‘information’. Knowledge is not merely the result of collection and processing. It requires the exercise of judgment. If we extend this distinction to the information and knowledge societies, we can see a shift in emphasis (Table 1). We therefore argue that the migration to the term ‘knowledge society’ reflects an understanding that the ‘knowledge society’ is a qualitatively richer concept. In our view the shift to

Table 1 Shift in emphasis from the information to the knowledge society. Information society

Knowledge society

Information and communication technologies Collection Dissemination Packages Measurement Facts Outputs Quantity Reliability Accuracy

Knowledge technologies (e.g. collaborative software) Production Analysis, evaluation Content Judgment Texts Outcomes Quality Validity Truth, trust

Journal of Information Science, 33 (4) 2007, pp. 387–397 © CILIP, DOI: 10.1177/0165551506075327

389

Peter Johan Lor and Johannes Jacobus Britz

a ‘knowledge society’ implies a more radical societal transformation than the advent of an ‘information society’. In this paper when we distinguish between the two as outlined here, we use the terms ‘information society’ and ‘knowledge society’. We define a knowledge society therefore as a society that operates within the paradigm of the economics of information. Human capital is valued as the highest asset and is seen as the prime input to production and innovation. The creation of knowledge (content) is a unique feature of a knowledge society. As such, a knowledge society is underpinned by a well developed information as well as physical infrastructure allowing participation in the different socio-economic and political activities.

3.

Criteria for the information and knowledge societies

Elsewhere [12] we put forward four pillars of information and knowledge societies. The pillars can be used as basic criteria to evaluate the progress of a country towards such a society. These criteria are: • ICT infrastructure; • content; • human capacity; • physical delivery infrastructure. These are briefly outlined here, and in light of our distinction between an information society and a knowledge society, we suggest that the criteria do not carry equal weight when they are applied to an information society and a knowledge society. The four pillars of information and knowledge societies can briefly be defined as follows. 3.1.

ICTs and connectivity

To be able to participate in information and knowledge societies in the era of the information economy a well developed and maintained and affordable information and communication infrastructure is needed. Without such an ICT infrastructure socio-economic activities and political participation are not possible. 3.2.

Usable content

A well developed and well maintained information infrastructure that enables access to, and accessibility of, information to enable participation in the dematerialized economy alone is not enough. The information that is accessible should also be affordable, available, timely, relevant, readily assimilated, and in languages and contexts users can relate to and understand. 3.3.

Physical delivery infrastructure

What many policy makers forget is that this new information economy, which can also be referred to as a dematerialized and weightless economy, is underpinned by a ‘materialized’ and top-heavy infrastructure that includes harbours, airports, railways, roads, warehouses and physical addresses of people. A dematerialized information-based economy without a physical infrastructure to allow the delivery of the physical products is of little use and can even create unmet expectations. A rural health worker may find highly relevant information on the world wide web about the prevention of a killer disease, but this will be of little use if there are no roads and no vehicles to deliver the vaccines to the clinic, or if there is no working refrigerator to keep them cold. The digital divide has indeed more than ever become a physical divide. 3.4.

Human intellectual capability

The development of human capital represents one of the most important factors that facilitate development and economic growth. Of relevance here is the concern expressed by Freeman and Soete Journal of Information Science, 33 (4) 2007, pp. 387–397 © CILIP, DOI: 10.1177/0165551506075327

390

Peter Johan Lor and Johannes Jacobus Britz

[13] that, if developing countries do not invest more in education and specifically in R&D, they will be excluded from the knowledge and innovation networks, which are mainly concentrated in the USA, Europe, and Asia. Information and knowledge societies need people who can create as well as utilize knowledge. It is of little use to have access to information and a well designed and maintained information infrastructure but not the ability to create new knowledge by adding value to the accessed information. Based on the four identified criteria we are of the opinion that content and human capacity are the two crucial components of a knowledge society. A society can still pass for or approach the status of an information society if it satisfies the two criteria for infrastructure and achieves a low score on content and human capacity, but to be counted as a knowledge society, it must also be rated highly on content and human capacity.

4.

The international race towards the knowledge society

In recent decades the progress of nations towards the information and knowledge society has taken on some of the characteristics of a race which in some ways is not unlike the arms race. National governments in many countries have policies or are developing policies to accelerate progress towards the information and knowledge society. They are impelled by the desire to gain competitive advantage in an increasingly globalized world, and by the fear of being left behind. This may prompt heavy investment in ICTs and in the promotion of information awareness and information literacy among the broad population. For some countries, such as Ireland, ICTs have proved the key to economic prosperity. In the 1960s and 1970s economic geographers considered a country such as Ireland, at the periphery of Europe, to be doomed to economic marginalization, simply because of the long supply lines which made the products of that country less competitive [14]. Today ICTs allow nations to escape the tyranny of distance and time. For some years the Republic of Ireland has had one of the most rapidly growing economies of Europe [15]. This is due in no small part to ICTs that have abolished the tyranny of distance. The knowledge society also holds promise for countries that lack natural resources, such as Singapore. Hence the policy to make Singapore an ‘intelligent island’, with a sophisticated ICT infrastructure, excellent connectivity, and a highly educated and information literate workforce [16]. In the African context, much is made of the notion of ‘leapfrogging’. By this is understood that modern ICTs may enable African nations to catch up with more advanced nations by skipping or bypassing certain economic development stages – a notion which, at least in its more simplistic manifestations, is in need of critical scrutiny. It has been noticed that in the 19th century the Industrial Revolution first manifested itself in countries, such as Great Britain, where a relative degree of democracy and freedom of information had been achieved. Is this coincidental, or is there a cause and effect relationship? The rhetoric about participation in the information or knowledge society reflects an assumption which is one of the tenets of so-called market driven capitalism, namely that democracy and economic progress go hand in hand. Such an assumption could underpin an argument that, when dealing with rapidly growing economies in the developing world, Western governments and corporations should not be too fussy about human rights and freedom of information. These, it is sometimes suggested, will follow by themselves as the economy prospers. Among the middle-ranking developing nations that are trying to position themselves in the race towards the knowledge society, there are a number that have come under the spotlight as part of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) process and have been subjected to severe criticism on account of their poor human rights records, with particular reference to freedom of information and policies concerning access to and control of the internet. In this context the question arises whether a country in which freedom of expression and freedom of access to information are severely restricted can develop into a knowledge society. This article presents an argument that access to information is a precondition for becoming a knowledge society. Acknowledging a right of access to information not only allows access to the ideas of others, but also opens up the opportunity to participate in the global information-based socio-economic Journal of Information Science, 33 (4) 2007, pp. 387–397 © CILIP, DOI: 10.1177/0165551506075327

391

Peter Johan Lor and Johannes Jacobus Britz

and political activities. The denial of access to information is therefore no longer merely a denial of access to the ideas held by others or suppression of freedom of expression. It also marginalizes people’s participation in the various economic, political and socio-cultural activities. It touches the very heart of the modern information era. Just as the right to freedom of expression was the dominant ‘information-based right’ in the previous era, so the right of access to information has become the dominant right in the information and knowledge era.

5.

Freedom of information in relation to the criteria for the information and knowledge societies

In this part of the paper we focus on freedom of information in relation to the four selected criteria of information and knowledge societies. 5.1.

ICT and physical infrastructure

Two of the four identified criteria are grouped under this heading. They are ICT infrastructure and physical delivery infrastructure. From an economic as well as a political perspective one can argue that a well-developed information infrastructure and a corresponding physical infrastructure are the backbone to all socio-economic and political activities of a knowledge society. From a moral perspective we argue that a well developed and maintained information infrastructure and corresponding physical infrastructure form the material backbone to our freedom, which is expressed in our respective individual and social rights, including the right of access to information. A well developed information infrastructure provides the medium that allows us to make choices. We will not have the ability to choose if we do not have the ability to access the vehicle that facilitates access to information – which is the precondition for the choices we make. Justice – as the moral tool that ensures fairness and the protection of our freedom and respective rights – therefore demands the creation of equal opportunities for all to have access to information infrastructures. Such equal opportunities will open up possibilities for gaining access to the ideas of others, to express views, but also to be able to participate in the various information-based socio-economic as well as political activities of a knowledge society. We therefore argue that both governments and the private sector have a moral obligation to develop and maintain affordable information infrastructures facilitating access to essential information. We specify essential information. It is the information that individuals and communities need to survive and develop. It includes information relating to the basic needs of humanity as well as the information tools needed for trade and socio-economic development. We see such information as a public good [17]. The specific economic model as well as choice of the political economy regulating the production and distribution of information products and services may vary from country to country, as long as the basic moral premises of equal information opportunities for all is met. The move towards free wireless internet cities in the USA and the decision of the Egyptian government to subsidize access to the internet serve as two good practical applications of our moral theory [17, p. 199]. The monopolized, and as a result very expensive, telecommunication tariffs in South Africa serve as an example of an unfair information infrastructure. This economic model puts a serious constraint on the ability of many South Africans to exercise their right to freedom of choice. Equal opportunities of accessing and communicating information are limited because the poor are marginalized and even barred from accessing essential information. 5.2.

Content

Just as a well developed and maintained information infrastructure is fundamental to guarantee our freedom, so is access to essential content fundamental to our ability to exercise our freedom. This is a rather complex moral argument. Information is a category word and from a moral perspective a rather complicated notion. For example, for one person a specific piece of information may be essential and for someone else the same piece of information may be meaningless. Another Journal of Information Science, 33 (4) 2007, pp. 387–397 © CILIP, DOI: 10.1177/0165551506075327

392

Peter Johan Lor and Johannes Jacobus Britz

complex moral issue, and certainly not a new one, is how to find a fair and just balance between the right to own information and the right to access and use it. Elsewhere [12] we have argued that, from a social justice perspective, ‘free access to information’ may be economically unfair just as the strict application of intellectual property regimes barring access to essential information is an unjust restriction of our rights and freedom. This is not a new debate, but the advent of the knowledge era, based on an information economy, makes it a rather prominent social issue, impacting amongst others on the economic and political activities of individuals and societies. The issue of access to information versus ownership thereof is no longer limited to the right to gain access to the ideas of others or to express our views. The ownership versus access debate has become a social issue that concerns the ability to access global information-based socio-economic and political activities. It has become an issue of who can participate and who is marginalized. On the basis of Rawls’ theory of justice [18] and of the categories of social justice that we have elaborated in an earlier paper [19] we propose the following moral guidelines regarding access to and accessibility of essential information: • The political economy of the distribution of information must allow equal opportunities to access essential information. The creation of equal opportunities for access to essential information also implies the limiting of possible constraints, such as censorship or economic models that may inhibit access to information by individuals or societies. • Creators, owners, distributors and other value adders to information products and services must be fairly compensated for their work. But the principles of ownership and fair compensation should not override the first moral guideline, namely the creation of equal opportunities for all to gain access to essential information. Based on these two moral guidelines we elaborate on two key aspects of access to essential information in the knowledge era: affordability and diversity. 5.3.

Affordability

The political economy of the distribution of information in the marketplace has indeed become a moral issue in the last few years. Access to and use of specifically essential information has become more difficult mainly because of a stricter application of intellectual property rights (IPR) legislation. In most cases IPR regimes are structured in such a manner that they generate more commercial revenue for the corporations that own and control information. The original principle underlying IPR is expressed in our two moral guidelines: incentives for creators and owners of information should be in equilibrium with access to that information by all. The current imbalance puts the information commons at risk. The following distorting trends regarding IPR that have developed in recent years serve as a proof of this shift: • The rich nations, in particular the European Union (EU) and the USA, have taken the lead in the setting of international standards to ensure that IPR owners, which are mostly from the developed world, are protected worldwide. They have also succeeded in including IPR in general trade agreements and have established a framework for countries around the world to tighten their IPR regimes in accordance with these international agreements [20]. • The two key instruments used to achieve this shift in IPR are the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, which was agreed upon in 1994, and the 1996 Copyright Agreement of the United Nations-based World Intellectual Property Organization [21–23]. As an implementation of these agreements, the USA enacted the Digital Copyright Millennium Act in 1998 and it was followed in 2001 in Europe with the EU Copyright Directive. This has led to severe criticism. Toner [24, p. 7] refers to these trends as ‘social terror’ and according to Drahos [25, p. 3] ‘intellectual property begins to look like a game in which the rich have found Journal of Information Science, 33 (4) 2007, pp. 387–397 © CILIP, DOI: 10.1177/0165551506075327

393

Peter Johan Lor and Johannes Jacobus Britz

ways to rob the poor’. According to Bollier [26, p. 1] we are moving towards market enclosure taking information out of the public domain into the private zone. At stake is not only the removal of essential information from the public domain, but also our fundamental freedom to make choices and to participate. We argue that intellectual property systems must contain mechanisms for access to the same essential information. Each individual must be assured that there is access to at least the minimum information that is required to live a decent life. Intellectual property regimes must therefore ensure a minimum information standard in a society to enable an individual to satisfy essential needs. However, the freedom to exercise the right of access to essential information is not enough. This freedom must be an enabling freedom. Participatory justice [17] implies that equal opportunities must be put in place for everybody, irrespective of income, race, gender, colour etc. to gain access to essential information so as to be able to participate in the socio-political and cultural processes of society. Based on contributive justice [17] it is argued that society, and more specifically the government, has a moral obligation to ensure the availability of such essential information in society. This can be done by means of subsidizing the dissemination of essential information, but also by designing IPR regimes in such a manner that access to essential information is not restricted or hampered by legislation. 5.4.

Diversity

Diversity of content is affected by censorship. Repressive governments tend to argue that the Party, the Junta or the President is the guardian of the nation, protecting it from negative foreign influences. Foreign influences could include content that may support minority or dissident groups in the country, seen as subversive policies and ideologies, as well as content that is judged morally offensive. We deal with this last category first. In a country with limited bandwidth it may be argued by the authorities that the available bandwidth should be reserved for ‘constructive’ content that favours ‘nation-building’. In a country starved for bandwidth it is difficult to argue for the freedom of college students to visit pornographic web sites or to use the bandwidth to download pop music and videos. This is reasonable at face value. Lack of access to pornographic web sites is hardly likely to impede a country’s progress towards a knowledge society. However, lack of resources can serve as an excuse for more general censorship. Web sites of opposition or dissident groups or comment and criticism by foreign media may also be labelled as an unnecessary luxury that the country cannot afford. The danger lies in the tendency of repressive governments to extend rather than relax control. Empires that do not expand, crumble. This affects civil society too. The very vibrancy of civil society is perceived as threatening by insecure governments. Our experience in South Africa during the apartheid years taught us that restrictions on access can cause a regime to lose touch with reality. Curtailment of freedom of information is invariably associated with the dissemination of disinformation. As the regime’s grip tightens, its own pronouncements lose credibility while the regime itself finds it more and more difficult to distinguish between information and disinformation. Thus the regime isolates itself and becomes increasingly sensitive, over-cautious and ultimately paranoid. Political isolation and economic difficulties follow. Justice requires that individuals and societies have a right to communicate, to learn from others, share views and participate in global information-based activities. Hamelink [27] even argues that we should move beyond knowledge and information societies toward communication societies, because globalization without dialogue becomes ‘homogenization and hegemony’ [27, p. 41]. We further argue, in line with Habermas [28], that governments have a moral obligation to create a media and information environment that is independent and of a diverse nature. Such an environment should guarantee the right to access different views and sources of information as well as the ability to interpret it within the public sphere. At a purely pragmatic level, censorship restricts choice and imposes a suspect uniformity. This constitutes a disincentive to access and a barrier to the development of widespread information literacy. Journal of Information Science, 33 (4) 2007, pp. 387–397 © CILIP, DOI: 10.1177/0165551506075327

394

Peter Johan Lor and Johannes Jacobus Britz

5.5.

Human capacity

Development of an information and knowledge society requires highly qualified human resources. Based on the principle of equal opportunities for all we argue that these resources should be drawn from the whole population of the country – including women and minority groups. Not only are skilled people needed to build and maintain infrastructure and operate systems, but the general population should also have attained a high level of information literacy that will not only ensure access to necessary information but also the ability to benefit from it. Information literacy includes the development of independent critical thinking, which is discouraged under conditions of lack of freedom. In the case of a knowledge society a threshold is only reached when the country not only utilizes, but also produces, knowledge. Knowledge production requires people who can think creatively, independently and critically. At the PrepCom3 in Geneva in September 2005, the International Association for Media and Communication research (IAMCR) announced that it would launch an ‘International Researcher’s Charter’ at the Tunis Summit. One of the ‘Charter principles’ reads: Researchers should be entitled to intellectual freedom and to transparent evaluation of their results by independent, legitimate public bodies; to express themselves as freely as possible without censorship or curtailment of the distribution of their intellectual outputs using all media and ICTs so as to maintain and expand the global public domain of research and to foster the capacity to contribute to cultural diversity, as well as to ensure informed participation by all citizens in social, cultural and economic activities, thereby promoting a democratic environment at all levels and in all contexts. [29]

Knowledge production should furthermore not be limited to formal educational systems (primary, secondary and tertiary levels). Castells [30] as well as Freeman and Soete [13] focus on R&D as the core theme of their analysis of the information/knowledge society and technological innovation. They argue that, although formal educational systems are important for the creation and spreading of knowledge, the growth of professional R&D in the industrial sector has been one of the most important factors to bring about economic and social changes. Van Audenhove, in his analysis of the information society (which for the purpose of this article can also be translated as the ‘knowledge society’) also warns against an over-emphasis on the role that modern ICTs play in political decision-making on development towards a knowledge society: One fundamental danger then of the rhetoric – and theory – of the information society is that it mainly focuses on the technical capacity of countries and sees education as a facilitator in the information society. I would argue that the central element in the information society is knowledge and that technology is merely the facilitator in development. The main focus in the development effort has in recent years dangerously shifted towards the technological to the detriment of the educational. [31, p. 65]

Under repressive governments critical thinking may be tolerated, but only in given compartments, for example, in the ‘hard’ natural sciences, technology and medicine, allowing work of international standard to be carried out. During the apartheid regime, the world’s first heart transplant was carried out in South Africa. But this could not be interpreted as proof of the health of the polity. Outside the compartments of intellectual work that are perceived as either politically neutral or of such strategic value that risk-taking is justified, there may be a greater reluctance to permit international communication. This particularly affects the social sciences and humanities. Such compartmentalization is ultimately detrimental. Lack of free discussion on, for example, the social and environmental impact of technological advances and developmental projects may lead to disastrous situations, as has happened in the case of some agricultural practices, the building of certain large dams and some nuclear energy installations. Furthermore, lack of freedom is demotivating. Repressive governments reward loyal followers. Mediocrity rules. Frustration among the intelligent contributes to the brain drain of skilled persons seeking to leave the country and pursue their careers elsewhere. This affects ICT personnel in particular, since they are in high demand world-wide. The development of a knowledge society requires freedom. It therefore requires a social system that allows critical thinking, encourages access to the ideas of others, and promotes the freedom to communicate and participate in the sharing of the global body of knowledge. Journal of Information Science, 33 (4) 2007, pp. 387–397 © CILIP, DOI: 10.1177/0165551506075327

395

Peter Johan Lor and Johannes Jacobus Britz

6.

Conclusion

Freedom of information is rightly regarded as a basic human right. There is a long and honourable tradition of struggle for this right that is based on appeals to political statements such as Article 19 of the Universal Charter of Human Rights. Article 4 of the Declaration of Principles that was adopted by the first World Summit on the Information Society in Geneva in 2003 is part of this tradition. In this article we have argued that, in the knowledge society, freedom of information is no longer an abstract good but a very practical precondition for full participation by all in the essential political, cultural and economic processes. At this point, we believe, moral and pragmatic arguments converge. We conclude as follows. While heavy-handed censorship is not favourable for the development of a knowledge society, a repressive regime that directs significant resources towards the development of its ICT infrastructure and the training of the skilled human resources needed to operate it, can make progress towards an information society. But in our view it is very doubtful whether a country can progress towards a knowledge society under conditions of severe restrictions of freedom of information. The development of content and human capacity is critical to the development of a knowledge society. Both require freedom of information.

References [1] J.J. Britz, Technology as a threat to privacy: ethical challenges and guidelines for the information professionals, Microcomputers for Information Management: Global Internetworking for Libraries 13(3–4) (1996) 175–94. [2] WSIS, The Geneva Declaration of Principles and Plan of Action (World Summit on the Information Society, Geneva, 2003). [3] R. Smith, Publishing research in developing countries, Statistics in Medicine 21(19) (2002) 2869–77. [4] P.F. Drucker, Peter Drucker on the Profession of Management (Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 1998). [5] T.H. Davenport and L. Prusak, Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know (Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 1998). [6] C. McInerney, Knowledge management and the dynamic nature of knowledge, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 53(12) (2002) 1009–18. [7] R. Mansell and U. Wehn (eds), Knowledge Societies: Information Technology for Sustainable Development (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1998). [8] OECD, The Knowledge Based Economy: a Set of Facts and Figures (OECD, Paris, 1999). [9] H. Evers, Towards a Malaysian Knowledge Society (2002). Available at: www.anakmalaysia.net.my/articles/Malaysian-Knowledge-Society_e.pdf (accessed 4 July 2006). [10] World Bank, Entering the 21st Century: the World Development Report, 1999/2000 (1999). Available at: www.worldbank.org/wdr/2000/ (accessed 4 July 2006). [11] United Nations University, Higher Education and Knowledge (1998). Available at: www.unu.edu/africa/ 00sps-strengthen.html (accessed 4 July 2006). [12] J.J. Britz et al., Africa as a knowledge society: a reality check, The International Information & Library Review 38(1) (2006) 25–40. [13] C. Freeman and L. Soete, The Economics of Industrial Innovation (Continuum, London, 1997). [14] J. Pen, Modern Economics (Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1965). [Translated from the Dutch by Trevor S. Preston.] [15] Republic of Ireland, Inter-departmental Committee on Science, Technology and Innovation, Building Ireland’s Knowledge Economy: the Irish Action Plan for Promoting Investment in R&D to 2010 (2004). Available at: www.iua.ie/working_industry/pdf/knowledge_economy.pdf (accessed 4 July 2006). [16] Singapore, National Computer Board, A Vision of an Intelligent Island: IT2000 Report (National Computer Board, Singapore, 1992). [17] J.J. Britz, To know or not to know: a moral reflection on information poverty, Journal of Information Science 30(1) (2004) 192–204. [18] J. Rawls, Theories of Justice (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1973). [19] J.J. Britz and P.J. Lor, A moral reflection on the digitization of Africa’s digital heritage, IFLA Journal (2004). Available at: www.ifla.org/IV/ifla69/papers/146e-Britz_Lor.pdf (accessed 4 July 2006).

Journal of Information Science, 33 (4) 2007, pp. 387–397 © CILIP, DOI: 10.1177/0165551506075327

396

Peter Johan Lor and Johannes Jacobus Britz

[20] H. Chang, Globalisation, Economic Development and the Role of the State (Zen Books, London, 2003). [21] H. Von Hielmcrone, The efforts of the European Union to harmonise copyright and the impact on freedom of information, Libri 50 (2000) 32–9. [22] L.E. Harris, Digital Property: Currency of the 21st Century (McGraw-Hill Ryerson, Toronto, 1997). [23] P.N. Thomas and P. Lee, Why should intellectual property rights matter to civil society? Media Development: Journal of the World Association for Christian Communication 4 (2002) 6–8. [24] A. Toner, The problem with WSIS, World-Information (10–12 December 2003). [Special IP Edition.] Available at http://world-information.org/wio/readme (accessed 8 December 2006). [25] P. Drahos, The injustice of intellectual property, World-Information (10–12 December 2003). [Special IP Edition.] Available at http://world-information.org/wio/readme (accessed 8 December 2006). [26] D. Bollier, Preserving the commons in the information order, World-Information (10–12 December 2003). [Special IP Edition.] Available at http://world-information.org/wio/readme (accessed 8 December 2006). [27] C.J. Hamelink, Moral challenges in the information society, Media Development: Journal of the World Association for Christian Communication 4 (2002) 40–42. [28] J. Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1989). [Translated by T. Burger.] [29] IAMCR, Announcing the International Researchers’ Charter (2005). Available at: http://mail.asis.org/ pipermail/eurchap/2005-September/000167.html (accessed 4 July 2006). [30] M. Castells, End of Millennium. The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture (Blackwell, Malden, 1998). [31] L. van Audenhove, Theories of the information society and development: recent theoretical contributions and their relevance for the developing world, Communication 29(1–2) (2003) 48–67.

Journal of Information Science, 33 (4) 2007, pp. 387–397 © CILIP, DOI: 10.1177/0165551506075327

397