"Holding media outlets liable for speech, even speech that violates international standards, requires editors to pre-screen all broadcasts and, owing to the vagueness of standards, to act as censors. During election periods when it is crucial that political parties be able to publicize their platforms, especially where the major broadcast media rare controlled by the government, the various competing rights may be better balanced by holding liable only the political party or individual responsible for the broadcast. A growing number of governments and courts which respect freedom of expression are choosing not to hold the media liable for unlawful statements published by the media (other than statements made or endorsed by media personnel)...The reasons for not holding the media liable are all the stronger during election periods when timely dissemination is crucial given that concern over liability often delays or prevents the airing of political party programmes. Insistence on holding the media liable for campaign statements clearly promotes self-censorship by privately-owned media and de facto government censorship of government-controlled media...International law strongly disfavours prior restraint, especially where the information's value depends on timely dissemination. The [OAS, ACHR] (in Article 13(2)) expressly prohibits all 'prior censorship'. The [ICCPR] and [ECHR] have been interpreted to prohibit administrative censorship except in extraordinary circumstances, and to require that any administrative order restraining publication be subject to speedy review by a court."