Do Filipinos know how to use their freedom of speech?

What is up with some modern day proponents of freedom of speech? Do they really know what they are talking about? Sometimes they give me the impression that all they are good at is quoting some dead bigwig who advocated freedom of expression in the past. Unfortunately, these same bigwigs could never have imagined that cyber-bullying would even exist one day.

Nowadays, modern day so-called “advocates” get lost in their own interpretation of what their deceased idols actually meant by “free speech” and worse, they get trapped in their own dogma. It is enough for anyone to suggest that they are averse to evolving with the times.

In theory, it is universally agreed that each individual should have the right to express whatever message he or she wants convey. In reality though, each individual has to be accountable for what he or she says. Freedom of speech advocates always stress that the law protects even the smallest person in the land from being silenced.

The truth is, freedom of speech alone does NOT really protect everyone’s civil liberties. Civil liberties include: the right to life, freedom from torture, freedom from slavery and forced labour, the right to liberty and security, the right to a fair trial, the right to defend one’s self, the right to privacy, freedom of conscience, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and association, and the right to marry and have a family.

In a lot of instances, speaking too much might even cost people the very freedom they enjoy.

The right to say just about anything publicly can also result in harm to other individuals or group of people. In fact, there are other laws in existence that serve to protect people from unfair attacks coming from those who practice so-called “freedom of speech.” Other laws that protect individuals include anti-bullying and defamation laws. To quote something from the Net: “In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, such as on ‘hate speeches’.”

Freedom of speech is perhaps one of most misunderstood concepts in the world. It is often misunderstood due to people’s many and varied interpretations and applications of the law. It is often misunderstood none more so than in the Philippines. A lot of Filipinos complicate their lives by attempting to deviate from what the founding fathers of the principle of “freedom of speech” were trying to get across. Obviously, the founding fathers were more concerned about suppression of ideas and opinions.

The French Revolution gave way to the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, which specifically stated:

The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law [author’s boldface].

The operative words are “ideas” and “opinions.” Most Filipinos cannot get around to understanding what constitute what these two words convey. They think that obscenities are included in “ideas” and “opinions.” They also think that attacking an individual for his differing opinion is a good way to practice freedom of expression.

The most important part about the above statement is that every citizen “shall be responsible for this freedom.” This means that we have to acknowledge that there can be possible consequences for what we say. This is another thing that even grown men in the Philippines can’t get around to understanding. Even the First Amendment of the US constitution in 1791 encourages peace and not anarchy:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

In the United States however, where most proponents and so-called “experts” on free speech reside, Americans are often forced to come to terms with how the First Amendment of the constitution exposes–and protects speech that harms individuals. Some people are saying that the First Amendment has got to protect negative statements as well. But inflicting emotional distress on a person is usually dealt with through a lawsuit. The court of course, determines how “substantial” the distress has to be for it to rule criminal liability. Is the attack severe enough to interfere with schoolwork? Did it drive the victim to suicide? In other words, each case still has to go through the eye of the litigation needle so to speak.

What constitutes Free Speech?

Just about everything we say or write can fall under the banner of “Free Speech.” Someone screaming obscenities can claim that he has the right to utter the offensive words under the guise of civil liberties. However, even if the person uttering obscenities is indeed protected by the most basic human right law, other laws such as defamation and obscenity laws also exists to supposedly protect the reputation of an individual from unfair attack.

A defamation law “is an attempt to balance the private right to protect one’s reputation against the public right to freedom of speech. Defamation law allows people to sue those who say or publish false and malicious comments.” Anything that injures a person’s reputation can be defamatory. Whether it is oral (slander) or written (libel) defamation, a case can be filed against a person if what he said or wrote falls under those two types.

Almost everyone makes defamatory statements almost everyday especially in the Philippines. But it is very rare that the law is invoked against these acts. This is because suing someone is a long, drawn-out and complex battle that could cost thousands in legal fees.

Usually, it is only people or organizations with plenty of cash that can pursue filing defamatory cases against an individual or a group of people. Which is why it is often said that the defamation actions and threats to sue for defamation are often used to try to silence those who criticize people with money and power. Defamatory law might not deter some people from making hate speeches for that reason alone.

Obscenity as defined by Wikepedia is any statement or act which strongly offends the prevalent morality of the time, is a profanity, or is otherwise taboo, indecent, abhorrent, or disgusting, or is especially inauspicious.

Censoring obscenities can also become tricky because standards in communities differ – what offends someone from Manila may NOT be something that offends someone from Cebu. The United States created what they call the “Miller Test” or the Three Prong Obscenity Test to determine if the offensive word is really offensive to the average person:

The Miller test was developed in the 1973 case Miller v. California.

It has three parts:

*Whether “the average person, applying contemporary community standards”, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,

*Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law,

*Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

The work is considered obscene only if all three conditions are satisfied.

The first two prongs of the Miller test are held to the standards of the community, and the last prong is held to what is reasonable to a person of the United States as a whole. The national reasonable person standard of the third prong acts as a check on the community standard of the first two prongs, allowing protection for works that in a certain community might be considered obscene but on a national level might have redeeming value.

To be sure, a standard has to be upheld all the time. Below is an example I found of a community standard affirmation:

We further affirm our commitment to:

*Respect the dignity and essential worth of all individuals.
*Promote a culture of respect throughout the University community.
*Respect the privacy, property, and freedom of others.
*Reject bigotry, discrimination, violence, or intimidation of any kind.
*Practice personal and academic integrity and expect it from others.
*Promote the diversity of opinions, ideas and backgrounds which is the lifeblood of the university.

Applying community standards such as the above actually ensures that each individual member of the community can voice their opinion and those who do so are protected from unfair attacks or bullying.

Unfortunately, this concept might be something that is totally alien to a lot of Filipinos. Since that is the case, there are Filipinos who insist that setting up standards or some kind of guidelines is tantamount to suppression of freedom of speech. They even claim that people can say or write offensive language directed at individuals as they please and still be accepted as merely exercising their “freedom of speech.” Never mind that offensive language directed at individuals actually discourages free flow of discussion. You can say that they are being very ignorant of the law. Which is why discussions on forums in the Philippine setting quite often turn into mere noise.

We must resolve to follow the same type of standard to keep up with the rest of the western world and put order in our communities. We cannot continue to run our organizations or communities like the Wild, Wild West and expect progress to happen.

The late freedom of speech advocate and philosopher, Alexander Meiklejohn stated that, “the concept of democracy is that of self-government by the people. For such a system to work an informed electorate is necessary.”

Based on what Meiklejohn said, it is obvious that democracy in the Philippines cannot work. Democracy cannot work because not all the members of the electorate are educated enough to demand information from their public servants. Not only that, our history under authoritarian rule has somehow screwed up the way we enjoy our freedom.

Is Freedom of Speech being abused in the Philippines?

Filipinos have only been enjoying their so-called “freedom” and “democracy” for just a quarter of a century. The late former President Ferdinand Marcos’s Martial Law in 1972 denied the Filipino people their right to assembly and suppressed their basic human right to voice their opinion publicly. In 1986, the so-called People Power “Edsa revolution” supposedly brought back the same rights after being denied for 13 years under the dictator.

Unfortunately, our society’s lack of discipline is very evident in the way most Filipinos practice their right to free speech. It is obvious in the way some Filipinos voice out or suppress their opinion that we have yet to understand the implications of what we say and write. There are Filipinos who think that criticizing the government for its shortfalls is being plain unproductive and should be avoided. On the other hand, there are Filipinos who abuse their right to free speech by spreading all kinds of propaganda against other people — a nefarious activity that transcends class; perpetrated by politicians, celebrities, and ordinary citizens alike.

Some say our national pastime is basketball. I beg to differ. It is actually gossiping. This is evident in the number of celebrity gossip shows on air and how the President of the country’s love life is more important to Filipinos than his economic policies.

If you think about it, the absence of Freedom of Speech for a mere 13 years is not that long. That’s just a little over a decade. It is not enough for us Filipinos to justify why we keep messing up the way we practice the concept considering it is something that we already had over the bigger part of the 20th Century.

But 25 years after Edsa, it seems that Filipinos still struggle with their freedom particularly with their Freedom of Speech. This statement holds true when in 2009, former President Gloria Arroyo had to place Maguindanao province under a state of martial law after 57 people were massacred including 31 members of the media in what was said to be the country’s worst incidence of political violence in history.

The Marcos regime certainly looked peachy compared to that dark episode. For even to this day, it appears that not only do Philippine politicians use the most basic form of censorship in silencing their rivals and their critics, like threats and intimidation, they also use brutal force without hesitation. As the famous playwright, George Bernard Shaw once said, “Assassination is the extreme form of censorship.” However, there are two sides to a coin. Could it be that our media has become out of control, irresponsible and even abusive after gaining their so-called “freedom?”

Former President Fidel Ramos during his term was one very annoyed person when it came to regarding our own media. He once quipped, “Our press needs to address its quality. It’s too dramatic all the time, too ideological, too much based on rumours and opinions. The writing is good but the reporting is poor. That’s why too many journalists are killed. They concentrate on rumors and melodramatic revelations and derogatory information about people. And their facts are often wrong.

Whether Ramos was right about our journalists’ penchant for exaggeration or not, it still does not justify killing them, of course. But he does have a point about some of them when he implied that they can be unprofessional and worst of all lacking in logic, with the Inquirer.net‘s Conrado de Quiros and Philstar’s William “Billy” Esposo leading the charge in writing almost fairy tale like pieces that, not surprisingly, win the hearts and minds of the gullible public.

You can be forgiven for saying that it was as if 13 years of suppression was enough to push some journalists over the edge of their sanity especially when they write articles quite often alluding to mystical characters like Aragorn and angels and demons for public consumption.

Apparently, even journalists are not above receiving monetary rewards for their stories. Multi-awarded journalist, Maria Ressa wrote about the alleged corruption in the media industry in her own site, Brave New World:

As a journalist, media corruption is a fact of life. Politicians, company officers and government officials have said they’re flabbergasted by the number of journalists on their payrolls. I ask, “why don’t you stop paying and expose them?” They say they can’t because they’re afraid if they don’t pay, they would be attacked. It’s so prevalent the radio guys coined a term for it – “AC-DC” – Attack-Collect-Defend-Collect.

Of course, paying also works in favor of the newsmakers: if they pay, they control what’s written or said about them. They know when it will come out, and what type of exposure and PR they can get. That certainty, for them, is worth paying journalists. So the cycle feeds itself.

Young journalists say “no” because they’re idealistic, but after a while, they start to see the way things really work. They begin to get disillusioned. The lines begin to blur together, particularly since so many of their elders are doing it.

So it seems that the most likely reason why some of our journalists can easily spot who is corrupt is simply because “it takes one to know one.”

With that revelation, it should not come as a surprise that some articles that come out in the mainstream media appear to be too favorable or too against a particular politician. No wonder one can hardly find any “balanced” news in the Philippines’s news and information channels.

That was evident during the most recent presidential election when then Presidential candidate Noynoy Aquino received more coverage than any other candidate in print and online broadsheets. Indeed, no truer is the saying, “Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one” than in the Philippines. It can even guarantee you a seat in Malacanang.

In the Philippines, it is not unusual for even ordinary citizens to say or write defamatory things all the time – a sign that the concept of “freedom of speech” has been highly misconstrued and abused by the citizens themselves. This was of course, very evident again during the most recent presidential election where accusations that qualify as slander and libel were thrown left and right by opposing political parties and their supporters. The worst victims were presidential candidates that were seen as affiliated with former President Gloria Arroyo. Labels like Villaroyo (in reference to Senator Manny Villar) or Gloria’s tuta (in reference to former Senator Dick Gordon) were quite common.

Propaganda and hate speeches are always in full swing during elections in the country. The advent of the Internet and social media made it even easier for Filipino politicians to spread untruths about their opponents. The problem lies when journalists label politicians corrupt even when the latter have not been prosecuted or allegations against them have not been proven in court. Marcos will always be the worst human rights abuser in the history of the Philippines due to uncorroborated stories traveling up and down the grapevine. Arroyo will be forever tainted as a corrupt leader since the incumbent President Noynoy Aquino (PNoy) and his minions keeps saying so.

It is very difficult to rebut statements made in mass media. There have been so many cases where people’s reputations have been destroyed by media attacks in the country. Their presence in the political arena causes much distress to some of the parties involved. Each and every Senate inquiry turns into a circus because the politicians use the supposedly “inquiry-only” session as an opportunity to intimidate or harass their supposedly invited “guest”. Due to the presence of the media, some former two-bit actor and even former rebel-soldier-turned-Senators appear to give the best performance of their life for the cameras.

Just to cite an instance when the above scenario occurred, Former Secretary and retired General Angelo Reyes was driven to suicide due to a witch-hunt like inquiry in the Senate earlier this year concerning alleged corruption in the Philippine military. Reyes knew all too well that once your reputation is shattered, it is futile to pick up the pieces. To an old man, it was such a daunting and pointless task to clear his name, as far as he was concerned.

In Philippine society, even the sins of the father are handed down to the son. This was evident when singer and songwriter Jim Paredes tried to pick a fight with the son of former President Marcos, Bong Bong on the social networking site, Twitter. It’s as if Bong Bong himself had been prosecuted for whatever alleged crimes his father committed.

Obviously, the kind of environment perpetuated by our very own media does not foster harmony. It does encourage distrust among members of the community and our public servants. Which is why it is hard for our society to achieve unity.

To achieve harmony, we must set up systems of communication that will force people to take responsibility for their statements, have the opportunity to make corrections and apologies, and lose credibility if they are repeatedly exposed as untrustworthy. Most of all, we must resolve to uphold the highest standards in practicing our freedom of speech.

print

Post Author: Ilda

In life, things are not always what they seem.

Leave a Reply

108 Comments on "Do Filipinos know how to use their freedom of speech?"

Notify of
avatar
Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
ChinoF
Member

Don’t forget Lee Kuan Yew’s famous words… “The Philippines had a rambunctious press, but it did not check corruption. Individual reporters could be bought…”

Today, it looks like entire newspaper companies and media outlets have been bought. Or have been ever since.

Edward
Guest
That’s the nature of humans, you give them something powerful and they abuse it or use it to prey against the weak. In the Philippines, the power of speech is absolute, when you get to be the head of the newspaper, you can control the entire country just by giving them information. I guess it’s true of what they say about information, “its power.” They can say one thing about someone and people will believe it, even though that was wrong or untrue. They make it sort of an entertainment to the masses the lives of these politicians. They make… Read more »
Hyden Toro
Guest
I believe always in telling the Truth; no matter who gets hurt…If you sanitize the Truth to the advantage of a Filipino Politician…you’ve done a great damage to the thinking of your fellow Filipinos…unless, you are under the payroll of such Politician… Anyway, readers in the internet blog sites; must use their brains…to check always the VERACITY of the information given by people…you all have brains and eyes…don’t you? SWS Pulse Asia, survey is a good case…it’s surveys show: we are greatly progressing; and Noynoy Aquino is a good President…However, no matter what I do: I cannot reconcile the Realities… Read more »
Cy
Guest

@Toro Hyden

Anong kinalaman niyan sa free speech? “Free speech’ emphasizes the sender of the message more than the receiver. You ask: “Should the sender free to tell that message?” Not “Should the receiver be free to receive it?”

Anyway, regarding your points – if you feel that most of what you’ve been receiving is BS< you're free to turn off the TV, tear your PDI, and smash your radio into the garage. If you feel like it. Good point, Toro.

Hyden Toro
Guest

What I’ve written is my opinion…in the Philippiness…We have people deluding people, telling us: it is free speech…Oligarchs Media is an example…jounalists on politician’s payroll…some paid hacks in the internet also…

Cy
Guest

@Toro Hyden

You got me….

Just because speech is free doesn’t mean that its content is already spared from scrutiny.

In fact, it is the unfree societies which usually disregard scrutiny of speech. If you even analyze – if you even think, you go to jail.

Well, the best counter to free speech is free speech. And maybe no other counter is as effective as speech; to paraphrase Sartre, a writer must fight with words, and probably with words alone.

***

However, speech alone does not lead us to think. Thinking starts from oneself….

Ron
Guest

@Toro

Yeah, I also believe that if you mess with the wrong crowd, you risk your life and the life of your family. Telling the truth without thinking is not an intelligent move. It’s a stupid move.

Vincenton Post
Guest
I find this statement very crude and anti-constitutional (meaning it does not go with the established constitutional interpretation or definition):”The truth is, freedom of speech alone does NOT really protect everyone’s civil liberties.” That’s a strawman statement. Who said that freedom of speech protects everyone’s civil liberties? Legally and politically speaking, freedom of speech and all those rights and freedoms enumerated under the bill of rights are protections against government abuse and interference. For instance, freedom of religion and freedom Against Unreasonable Search And Seizure are a limitation on or protection against the government. The Constitution is very clear: “No… Read more »
benign0
Admin
Why don’t you ask the Media and their emo journalists? They’re the ones who held up freedom of speech as some kind of silver bullet to cure the ills of the sad society that is the Philippines. And while they were at it, they put themselves on a pedestal and made like they were the heroes of the Republic, the “guardians of freedom” kung baga. Check out this brilliant article of mine from a while back where I observed: Media once fancied itself the pit bull of those self-described victims-of-eveything — Filipinos. The trouble with pit bulls is that they… Read more »
Cy
Guest
@Ilda I have some (serious) misgivings regarding this statement quoted by Froilan. “”The truth is, freedom of speech alone does NOT really protect everyone’s civil liberties.”” Does it have to? And when ‘speech’ does not satisfy the valuations of one setting what ‘civil liberty’ is – could it be banned from that jurisdiction? (See my latest Facebook note.) What about ‘self-expression’ – I’m just reminding you that it may be excluded. In other countries, it’s suppressed altogether. And I feel sad regarding both. That statement implies that although self-expression is not suppressed, it may be sorely missing in your account.… Read more »
Cy
Guest

By the way – here’s my Facebook note:

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=214602475218992

=)

Cy
Guest
@Ilda: You said: “I don’t know where you got the impression that the receiver is almost always the focus of free speech.” —> In many discussions I’ve been, what I often heard was something like “He/she shouldn’t have said that – it could offend someone” (highlighting the receiver) rather than “I applaud him for saying that; he/she doesn’t deserve this treatment” (highlighting the sender). Yours is an article that highlights the receiver more. I mean, why in your article, the “receiver” takes the spotlight most of the time over the “sender”. Even if the two are important – since it… Read more »
Cy
Guest

P.P.S. To paraphrase something that I said, why can’t we invest in metaphors? Is there something that prevents us from doing so? The guy who told me to “quit being a show-off” and “deal with the present” doesn’t obviously know what a metaphor is.

Cy
Guest

P.P.P.S. Take the example of the videoke – obviously the receiver is highlighted when we say that they have to be protected from unnecessary noise. Problem is, what if this mentality is expanded limitlessly and we then highlight the receiver and begin saying that institutions have to be protected from “self-expression”, which is basically unnecessary noise?

BenK
Editor

I know what a metaphor is. You were using a simile. 🙂

Joe America
Guest
Well, Ilda, you started fine, a very thoughtful piece, until you got to the part whining about President Aquino’s use of media to win the presidency. Or that laid responsibility for a suicide on the media. Indeed, freedom of speech is one part “right” and one part “responsibility”, and I disagree with Vincenton Post that it applies only to the government. The real difficulty is discerning the truth that Hyden likes to spout from agenda, where agenda is not meant to inform, but to manipulate. There is a lot of manipulation about. You engage in it with your agenda to… Read more »
benign0
Admin

Joe America said: “Well, Ilda, you started fine, a very thoughtful piece, until you got to the part whining about President Aquino’s use of media to win the presidency.”

To that I say: That is because that is EXACTLY what Noynoy did. Deal with it.

Joe America
Guest

What is he supposed to do, not use the influence he has, or paddle island to island in an outrigger promoting himself? He is supposed to lose in order to remain morally pristine in your eyes? Politics is not exactly a morally upright undertaking. You figure Estrada and Villar walked a higher line than President Aquino?

benign0
Admin

No, but he should’ve presented a more honest representation of his persona rather than the saint/god-like marquee that is based on his pedigree that he played quite astutely (or at least by his handlers) during his campaign.

Vincenton Post
Guest
A fan of this non-absolute blog named Benigno said: “Going down a different line, here is the notion that needs to be challenged: You say “freedom of speech” is a “right”? Fascinating. Where exactly did that notion come from? That’s up there with the notion that everyone has the “right” to pursue “happiness”. Is it now? Is everyone entitled to be “happy”? Both of those notions are enshrined in Western philosophy. But just because they are such does not make them absolutes in the natural scheme of things. Both of these are human constructs and it just so happens that… Read more »
benign0
Admin

Don’t look now, but somebody here is at a loss for insightful words…

By the way, dude, I immortalised my brilliant comment in my other blog. Check it out here.

nyek nyek!

Vincenton Post
Guest
This is my last reply to that blog since the blogger has a lot of interpretative and factual errors. The blogger says: “Freedom of speech advocates always stress that the law protects even the smallest person in the land from being silenced.” How many times do I have to repeat that such a right is a limitation on the government. The blogger says in her reply to my comment: “It is very convenient for you to say that “Since we borrowed this concept, we have to apply the American interpretation” but at the same time you mentioned that you do… Read more »
benign0
Admin

Can’t even address the person you are having a discussion with directly?

Pinoy nga naman talaga;
Parang aso.
Matangkad lang kapag nakatayo.

– 😀

Trosp
Guest

A classic example of how freedom of speech in the US went awry –

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/08/ap-funeral-protests-free-speech-phelps-snyder-083010/

And how they will reapair it –

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/20/new-law-stop-military-funeral-protesters/

I agree with Vinceton’s take.

Trosp
Guest

Ilda: “Unfortunately, these same bigwigs could never have imagined that cyber-bullying would even exist one day. ”

This one could be an example –

http://reynaelena.com/2008/12/15/moonbats-on-the-hill/

Edward
Guest

Either way man, who cares if he is right? Nothing will change even if he is right. Hindi naman debate blog ito. Opinion lang ang kailangan. Why does he have to get angry? Kung hindi siya agree then fine. No problem.

This is not war of words. Sigh!

Edward
Guest
I too was like that long before. I wanted to be right so bad I debated with a lot of people. Then I realize in the end, no one cares if I’m right. I can debate with lots of people and still I won’t change anything. I learned this the hard way: What people want, no matter who you talk to is respect, even if that guy is a bad guy. If you start to talk to them without respect, it won’t matter if your statement is right or intelligent, that guy will do anything to take revenge on you.… Read more »
ChinoF
Member

“No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.”

Hmmm, looking at the above provision, given how the media is so powerfully manipulative these days… and given the other provision that says media should be 100% Filipino owned… doesn’t this constitution seem doctored to protect the media?

I already hate this 1987 Constitution. Change it already, please.

Edward
Guest

Matagal na nga nila ginagawa yang “reform”, hanggang ngayon ganyan pa rin.

ChinoF
Member

Orion’s article tries to explain some reasons why it’s “ganyan pa rin.” Of course, there are other reasons… but some people are so eager to shoot down explanations why it’s “ganyan pa rin.” Double sigh.

Edward
Guest

@Chino

Hmmm…Yeah but why do we need to guess or infer, kitang kita naman di ba? “Blue boys” pa nga lang eh, pag huli labas agad yung kamay. What the follower does, emulates their leader.

In my opinion, look, don’t guess. Masakit sa ulo ung isip ng isip.

ChinoF
Member

Ilda, it doesn’t make sense to compete with a guy who believes he’s the only one who’s right in this world. And with people who believe they can read you’re mind. 😉

Edward, yeah, kitang-kita nga. Yung iba, nagbubulag-bulagan nalang. Most of them, binulag ng media.

Trosp
Guest
“No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.” This reminds me of my previous discussion in one of my favorite blogs – http://casaveneracion.com/talking-points-on-the-right-to-reply/ http://casaveneracion.com/correction-please-supreme-court-did-not-uphold-journalists/ Snippet: “In Article III Section 4 of the Bill Of Rights – “No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for redress of grievances” The right of reply does not… Read more »
Trosp
Guest

And how our local quack media practices their freedom of speech/expression/information?

“DON’T LET FACTS STAND IN THE WAY OF A GOOD STORY”.

– NEWS SOURCE WHO WISHED CONFIDENTIALITY means somebody who is mopping the floor and happens to be the only person around to answer their phone inquiry.

– AS WHAT EXPERTS HAVE BEEN CLAIMING means they have rejected other experts opinion and have published/aired only those who conform with their agendas.

– LIVE INTERVIEW means preselected interview.

– RANDOM INTERVIEW is same as the above definition of live interview.

Try watching Ch 2 or reading Inquirer to validate.

The Vincenton Post
Guest
This is actually one of the fundamental logical fallacies committed by the blogger, which explains her crass skepticism of the concept of absolute rights. In my online debate with the blogger, I tried to explain to her that the bill of rights is a protection against government abuse, thus it does not extend to private individuals. For instance, SM malls may limit the right of its patrons to free speech by setting up guidelines and standards. Again, a good case in point here is the epic case of Carlos Celdran. The bill of rights is a safeguard against government abuse… Read more »
Cy
Guest

@Vincenton Post

Does that mean that the Bill of Rights to you, after all, is just a bureaucratic measure to counter more bureaucratic measures?

To you, it’s just a piece of paper. Something you can shove up the government’s a$%.

To me, it’s my life. If someone deserves a ****, they get it. Government or not.

By doing so I am doing them a favor – I remind them how free and how potentially rich the usually untapped resource of free speech is.

You could have forgotten something: free speech could also be an instrument to reach the truth.

Take that!

Cy

Cy
Guest

@Vincenton Post

P.S. By the way, I wouldn’t want you in a government seat or in a private institution because of your stance against speech.

trackback

[…] days ago, Ilda of the Get Real Post delved into the subject in greater depth in a piece entitled, “Do Filipinos know how to use their freedom of speech?”, which was met with an aggressively Objectivist reaction in the comment threads from a blog called […]

The Vincenton Post
Guest
HERE’S MY COMMENT ON The Intellectual Anthill of Objectivism by Bad Manners Gun Club ——————————- This is getting funnier. This blog should be called Context-Drop Blog. Well, that’s what you get when you’re intellectually dishonest and lazy. Whatever you babbled on here does not represent AR’s views. I can’t even recognize them. I suggest a better way to attack her views. Try google Ayn Rand and Michael Shermer + Michael Prescott. These guys claimed they were former objectivists. You will surely get good materials for your blog. This reminds me of someone who had to commit plagiarism just to attack… Read more »
benign0
Admin

Ayn Rand said this and Ayn Rand said that. But the question remains: What does the Vincenton Post say? It seems nothing else other than what Ayn Rand say. Pity the wannabe-blogger who lacks a single word based on an original thought. 😀

Edward
Guest

@Benigno

Dude you don’t have to answer Vincent on this one. You’re just delving on his level. Let him say everything he wants to say. It’ll just pass thru time.

benign0
Admin

I already responded on his blog. That should suffice. Thanks. 🙂

Aristogeek
Guest

So is this the FUNNY blog with lots of logical fallacies? Lol!

@benigno, what was your argument?

“So there is, indeed, nothing absolute.”

That’s INSANITY lol! You people are indeed funny…

Edward
Guest

@Aristogeek

Logical? Argument? There’s no argument. The only argument I’m seeing here is your god “Vincent Post” is trying to create one.

Sure say anything dude. No cares anyway if you debunked everything.

Aristogeek
Guest

Because you can NEVER, NEVER refute his arguments! I followed that thread and it’s so pathetic how the GRP blogger showed this ignorance. The most pitiful and tragic thing is they don’t know they’re IGNORANT…

To whose level? To Vincenton Post? You don’t even know what the heck you’re talking about, peeps. Wanna trick reality?

The reality is, this blog has been so, so DEBUNKED! It’s either you’re insane or blind!

Edward
Guest

Sure blind, ok. Anything else?

benign0
Admin

@Aristogeek, it looks like you’re the one here who does not know what he is talking about because all you are doing is pointing out how *other* people do not know what they are talking about.

How about you articulate here what your arguments are and what you believe substantiates your belief in absolutes so that we can get a proper discussion started instead of you making a fool of yourself here posting juvenile rants.

Up to the challenge? 😀

Edward
Guest

There you have it guys. Yan ang Pilipino. I mean how low can someone be. A simple opinion and these type of guys turned it into a war.

Yan ang reason kung bakit ganito pa rin ang Pinas. Its people like these. Simple lang pinapalaki ang issue. Thanks for showing us your true color.

Now is it worth challenging these guys? Telling people they’re “stupid”. Wow.

benign0
Admin

What’s this you are talking about Mr ‘Aristogeek’? Cite specifically what you mean. And yes, I’ve read the blog. Question is, have you? By the looks of what you write here, it seems you haven’t. 😀

Aristogeek
Guest

Just read the Vincenton blog because it is detailed there how the most-read blogger copied some entries online for her college research paper.

It’s very obvious that you didn’t read it since your comments are merely focused on non-absolute *******…

http://fvdb.wordpress.com/2011/04/22/in-defense-of-absolute-rights-and-free-speech/

benign0
Admin

As I said, I did. Looks though that YOU haven’t, as you seem to be incapable of telling us exactly what YOU think of it (assuming of course that you do THINK). 😀

Trosp
Guest
Aristogeek: “Just read the Vincenton blog because it is detailed there how the most-read blogger copied some entries online for her college research paper.” Vinceton claimed in his post:”I’m not saying that the blogger, who definitely did her research well, committed the crime of plagiarism, however, it’s very clear that the passage was lifted from this online source.” Obviously, you following his line of thought, also think that plagiarism is a crime. (Yes, if plagiarism is a crime, then there is no need for copyright law). This is how plagiarism is defined in plagiarism.org and let us see what this… Read more »
Trosp
Guest

Aristogeek, I haven’t started yet with your blog and one that attracted my attention is the Aristotle’s Politics (Book Two).

Written without citing any source.

You stupid ass. Moron!

Trosp
Guest
All one has to do is copypaste an excerpt from his post and voila – it’s plagiarism by his definition. Example: I’ve copypasted this one at random from his post to google – ure and not have to provide for their daily wants is generally acknowledged, but there is a difficulty in seeing how this leisure is to be attained. The Thessalian Penestae have often risen against their masters, and the Helots in like manner against the Lacedaemonians, for whose misfortunes they are always lying in wait. Nothing, however, of this kind has as yethappened to the Cretans; the reason… Read more »
Ron
Guest

Wow, I been reading this for days and this Vincent guy has anger management issues.

Trosp
Guest

In a blogsphere, specially if it’s just a personal expression of one’s self or an expression of an opinion, citing source is not as important as the the context of the article.

Once there was a commenter who could not challenged my comment because he only know me by my commenter’s name. He has to know my curriculum vitae the way I see how he wanted it to be.

Jeez. How stupid.

Aristogeek
Guest
@ Trosp. People here are so ******! Trosp, you obviously don’t know what the heck you’re talking about. First, I identified Aristotle as the source of some of my blog posts, ******. Second, these works are UNCOPYRIGHTED!!! Do you know the concept of copyright, stupid? Second, Vincenton said that out of SARCASM. But it’s clear he used the words “LIFTED”, “BORROWED” and “COPIED.” He just let the readers decide whether plagiarism was committed. And ergo, THERE WAS PLAGIARISM. Third, Ilda copied the lines VERBATIM without paraphrasing! If she wanted to avoid being accused of PLAGIARISM, she should have used DIRECT… Read more »
benign0
Admin

Hey ‘Aristogeek’, you wanna see Stoopid? Check out how ur boss got featured in a noted Blogger’s article here. 😀

Cy
Guest

Hoy @Aristogeek!

Wag ka naman gung gong.

Does APA/MLA/Chicago U have guidelines for blog posts??!

Pakihanap na lang.

Thanks.

Cy

wpDiscuz