A/HRC/24/38 corporate–media manipulation. There is a legitimate democratic expectation that the media will have not only diversity of ideas but also diversity of ownership. Domestically, each government should take a close look at its telecommunications legislation, at the concentration of ownership in the media, and utilize anti-trust legislation to break up conglomerates that hinder open debate and diversity. What passes for journalism in many countries actually leaves the population indoctrinated, not informed. Too often journalism reflects a structural bias for the elites, the government and corporate interests. 37. Whereas freedoms of opinion, the media, peaceful assembly and association are absolutely essential to every democracy, these rights are lacking in some countries and hollowed out elsewhere. State censorship constitutes an obvious violation of article 19 of ICCPR, but censorship is also practiced by the private sector, engendering the same undemocratic result: a manipulated public. State interference with the media and Internet is a worldwide problem. On 17 July 2011, the Human Rights Committee adopted General Comment 34, in which it addressed the threats to freedom of opinion and expression, including defamation laws, blasphemy laws, and memory laws, which interfere with the free flow of ideas and necessary debate thereon: (a) “Defamation laws must be crafted with care to ensure that they …do not serve, in practice, to stifle freedom of expression. All such laws, in particular penal defamation laws, should include such defences as the defence of truth …” (paragraph 47); (b) “Prohibitions of displays of lack of respect for a religion or other belief system, including blasphemy laws, are incompatible with the Covenant…” (paragraph 48). (c) “Laws that penalize the expression of opinions about historical facts are incompatible with the obligations that the Covenant imposes on States parties in relation to the respect for freedom of opinion and expression. The Covenant does not permit general prohibition of expressions of an erroneous opinion or an incorrect interpretation of past events…” (paragraph 49). 38. Such laws have totalitarian implications and consequences, violate human dignity, the right to open debate, academic freedom, and ultimately lead to intellectual stagnation and self-censorship63, which have adverse consequences on the ability of people to participate in decision–making. 39. Access to truthful and reliable information from diverse sources is indispensable to a responsible citizenry and to the exercise of the vote. Freedoms of expression and peaceful assembly are not only rights but also civic duties that should be exercised freely and openly in every democracy. Freedom of expression is not just the right to echo politically correct ideas, but the right to express one’s personal convictions, which necessarily includes the right to be wrong. In some countries, the right to demonstrate is significantly curtailed and plagued by red tape; in others, demonstrators are arrested or even killed. 40. Increasingly, it seems that some media carry primarily the views of the elites. Even on controversial issues, there is lack of balance and little competitive opportunity for views other than those of the advertisers. Relentless advertising and hyper-commercialization of the media also have the effect of misleading the public, distracting their attention from real issues and making the audience addicted to sensationalist, trivial or trash news. A corporate media that only seeks profit and neglects public interest fails the test of a democratic media. 63 Human Rights Committee General Comment No. 25, para 4, Human Rights Committee General comment 34, para. 49. Alfred de Zayas and Aurea Roldan Martín, “Freedom of Opinion and Freedom of Expression: Some Reflections on General Comment No. 34 of the UN Human Rights Committee” in Netherlands International Law Review, 2012, pp. 425–454. 13