Thank you, Madame Chair.

One basic document for this discussion is the background paper presented by the Government of South Africa. It has its focus on two important factors to sustain cultural diversity in a modern society – media ownership and the role of the public service broadcasters.

Let me first say that I fully support the approach chosen by the South African Government. It is essential for any democratic society to have a range of independent mass media. We have chosen a different approach than South Africa, as we have introduced laws that limit the market shares one single company can have in the press, radio and television markets. Our aim is the same as in South Africa – to secure a mass media system with as many independent companies as possible.

Another important factor to support a democratic society and to enhance cultural diversity is to have a strong public service broadcasting sector independent from political authorities. Norway has two types of public service broadcasters – one financed by license fees, and one financed by advertising. Altogether these public service broadcasters offer us three nation-wide TV channels and five radio channels. What is common for them is that they are obliged by licence requirements to contribute to democracy, to support and develop the Norwegian language and culture, and to reflect the cultural diversity in our country. More or less, these are the same kind of commitments that are valid for South African broadcasters, and also for the vast majority of public service broadcasters in many, many other countries. This clearly shows, Madame Chair, that most democratic countries have seen the value of having a system of independent broadcasters that are not controlled by the state, but nonetheless have obligations to contribute to freedom of expression, cultural diversity and the development of the nation.

Finally, Madame Chair, I’d like to add a few remarks on the importance of a legal basis for the freedom of expression.

In our country, the constitutional protection of freedom of expression was introduced as far back as in 1814. The Norwegian Parliament has recently revised our Constitution on this point. The basis for the revision was a commission report published in 1999 and a white paper from the Government. In the white paper, the starting point is that freedom of speech protects three vital processes in society: One - the seeking of truth, two - the debate on matters of public concern in a democracy, and three -the individual’s freedom to form his or her own opinions by sharing and receiving information and ideas. The Parliament agreed to this, and has now given a stronger, wider and not least, clearer constitutional protection of the freedom of expression.

I will especially stress that one of the most important functions of freedom of speech is that it ensures that decision-making processes at all levels are preceded by discussion and consideration of a representative range of views. A decision made after broad consultation will in a better way mirror the opinions, interests and needs of all concerned. A government which does not know what the people feel and think, is – undoubtedly – in a dangerous position.

Words, opinions and texts may be unpleasant, distasteful and may in some cases even be dangerous. Undoubtedly, there are many expressions which – for one reason or another – may be regarded as undesirable; for instance incitement to violence, terrorism, pornography, defamatory expressions and so on. And as any other freedom, freedom of speech must have its limits. The difficult question – of course – is where to draw the line. Each country must of course be free to draw that line, but the basic values of freedom of expression should be based in each country’s Constitution.

This is the only way we can ensure the development of democracy in our world.

Thank you, Madame Chair.