Editorial: why ban with nothing to hide?

Photo: Toomas Huik / Postimees

Well, nothing much happened, did it? At first glance, at least, and in the Estonian context. A youthful Prime Minister banned a TV channel from governmental press conference, not liking Tallinn TV for its inherent propaganda and manners with money.

Verily, many share the dislike – and quite understandably so. Even so, let’s set the issue in a wider context – to the European one.

Ever since 1766 with the world’s first freedom-of-information laws passed in the Swedish parliament, it’s been part and parcel of what we call human rights. True: with law regulating access to information today, it is also important if the information is also available via other channels. But this isn’t the main thing, here. The main thing being the principle for the law, and the underlying background of the Enlightenment and its thinkers. In other words. The law sprung from the understanding that rational discussion is vital for the truth to come out. And that, in turn, would be impossible without information being open to all.

So let’s look at the Estonian case again, with the above at the back of our minds. A Prime Minister bars opposition media channel from information regarding activities by government. From this angle, the move goes farther than contradicting media freedom – it also infringes on rational discussion. The issue of Tallinn TV not really being media is not all that important. Whether or not Tallinn TV is worthy of its media licence is not an issue to be solved by the Prime Minister. If the licence is there, journalistic competence must have been assessed by relevant bodies. A politician is not competent to pass an assessment, nor alter the existing one.

Humans – and prime ministers – are fallible as we know. So that’s not a problem. A problem is sticking to the fallacy. In Postimees today, the Prime Minister says Tallinn TV is undermining credibility of the state and keeps questioning the foundations of its operations. And, therefore, he is not backing down.

The stubbornness is nothing new, and has been seen to lead to embarrassment. It’s not the issue of who’s right and who is wrong. Rather, it is freedom of information infringed vs European values. Thinkers true to traditions of the Enlightenment would set alarm bells ringing.