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.
| SUPPORT INDEPENDENT SOCIAL COMMENTARY! Subscribe to our Substack community GRP Insider to receive by email our in-depth free weekly newsletter. Opt into a paid subscription and you'll get premium insider briefs and insights from us. Subscribe to our Substack newsletter, GRP Insider! Learn more |
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.
In life, things are not always what they seem.
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.
Hi Chino
It is sad that this problem with our corrupt journalists seems to have flourished through the years rather than diminish. People in mass media cannot even police themselves.
It is too bad people without integrity hold the key to the most vital information for consumption of the masses.
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.â€
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 great entertainment because they knew that government fear only one thing, and that is the public.
The Ancient Roman Senate, to appease the public, they give the public entertainment by showing them blood in a form of a gladiatorial battle. They roar, scream and excite whenever they see bloodshed in front of them. It’s no different now.
The world is now “The Coliseum†and the masses are now us, we thrive when we see bloodshed. We get excited when politicians fall down. Yes, that is face of our nature, a bloodlust that is hidden beneath our masks, unchanged for centuries, imprisoned within our own dark recesses. All one has to do is tap that “dark force†inside of us and see it unleash before reality, and that’s what reporters do. They know what we want and so they give it to us.
Freedom is nothing more than an illusion, a pseudo-reality that once thrived in our lands that once engraved in the hearts of our people, nothing more. It already dissipated long before it ever touched our country.
People use this now only as a symbolism of their own philosophy. They have a belief and say it and combine it with the word freedom and then it becomes a “cause,†a “purpose†of something good. People join them, flock near them and shout with them chanting freedom from this and freedom from that.
Little do these people know that what they chant is actually the opposite of their purpose because they become imprisoned by the leader’s “cause,†but the truth is, the leader only wants fame, if not fame then power, if not power then greed, if any of those then all of that. He only uses people as his shield and sword to show the public the measurement of his power, to strike fear to give them a message that who ever messes with me shall be in big trouble.
Freedom, justice,equality? All of these are only just illusions. The only thing that is true is power, greed, lust, and fear.
Yes, taking responsibility of one’s statement can alleviate the growing corruption of the media but adding to your solutions I will use the words of Martin Luther King Jr.
“Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate.â€
“Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.â€
I could not agree more. If you kill a corrupt politician, you only kill the politician not the corruption. If you kill someone because of violence, you only kill the person, not the violence. In other words, you cannot repay fire with fire, it only makes it worse.
You are right, in order for a debate to end is to apologize. Respect is the key to your article and I like it. There is no other solution. Respect is the highest form of virtue, criminals even kill for it.
Hi Edward
I am so glad you understand the concept I was trying to impart in my blog. I can’t believe how other people like Vincenton Post got the wrong impression that I am advocating for more laws.
Thanks for your comment!
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 to such claims…my stomach is grumbling…
@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.
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…
@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….
@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.
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 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.”
Freedom of speech is a limitation on the powers of the government, not on private individuals…
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:
It is the renowned Victim Mentality of Da Pinoy that resulted in the utter perversion of the concept of “freedom of speech” in Pinoy society. Indeed, for that matter, Pinoys are also RENOWNED for perverting otherwise noble concepts. This is an observation I lay out in confronting detail in yet another great article I wrote a while back where I cited how…
So read ’em and weep, dude. If you think it is all about an ability to speak “legally and politically” (whatever that means), all you are doing is exhibiting an ability to google jargon and quote textbooks without being able to put these in the context of a society that counts as its best talent an ability to play the victim card so well. 😀
@Vincenton Post
You failed to say why you think “it does not go with the established constitutional interpretation or definition.”
And why do you limit yourself to your theoretical interpretation when there is reality? My statement “The truth is, freedom of speech alone does NOT really protect everyone’s civil liberties” is reality.
As quote 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.â€
The Constitution is very clear: Freedom of speech is NOT just solely for protection against government abuse and interference.
Other laws exist to protect citizens from unfair attacks by other individuals not just by the government. The law against cyberbullying is one.
Please don’t get stuck with theories. You have to evolve with the times. 🙂
I hope you understand that “free speech” is a limitation on the powers of the government. That’s in the constitution. It is not a limitation on private individuals.
You said: “And why do you limit yourself to your theoretical interpretation when there is reality?”
Reality is, free speech is a limitation on state powers. Do you understand this concept?
Here’s your main flaw: “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.â€
It is ABSOLUTE, blogger. If it is not absolute, then we cannot in any way express of thoughts. The constitution makes it absolute. Your premise is the same as the leftists’ and statists’ non-absolute liberty.
Free speech is part of our liberty- our right to liberty, as the Constitution states.
Here’s my take on an atheist blogger who claimed non-absolute liberty (actually you’re echoing his sophistic arguments).
Is liberty absolute? Yes! Liberty simply means “state of being freeâ€. If you’re not free, you’re a slave. Liberty is a RIGHT, because it primarily pertains to individual choice and actions. You are free to choose and to act according to your will or judgment. But are you free to kill or to loot? This is what the author of the sophistic blog doesn’t get.
“So if liberty is absolute, does that mean we can transgress upon the rights of others? The answer is no. The author of the sophomoric and sophistic blog forgets one concept: THE PROPER ROLE OF GOVERNMENT. In a free and ratio…nal society, a government is needed to police the affairs of its subjects, to protect contracts, to settle disputes through its courts of law, to protect individuals against gangs and criminals, and to protect the whole state against rebellion and invasion. Thus, a free and rational society requires an objective, rights-based code of law to: 1) limit the powers of the government, 2) define crimes and provide penalty therefor, 3) to define the state’s relationship with other states, and 4) to define the proper role of government.” http://fvdb.wordpress.com/2011/04/18/delusion-of-an-anti-absolute-liberty-statist/
Let me connect this with your statement on “hate speech” which I find very appalling. “Hate speech” is an anti-concept because it obliterates our right to liberty, that is to express our thoughts. It is in fact a politically correct concept that limits individual liberty and man’s ability to express his thoughts and views and opinions. What is “hate speech” anyway? It is anything that hurts the feelings of any collective. Who determines “hate speech”? What constitutes “hate speech”?
If you believe that your neighbor maligned your person or reputation, you always have the right to seek legal recourse. We have a law that penalizes libel and slander. Your neighbor’s freedom ends once he violates your rights, or when you right begins. Yes, you have the absolute freedom to say whatever it is that you wanted to say, but others have freedom and rights to be protected by the state, too? Is this hard to get?
You said: “The Constitution is very clear: Freedom of speech is NOT just solely for protection against government abuse and interference. ”
Who said this? What’s your proof? Where’s the constitutional provision? Your simply trying to amend the constitution according to your own crude interpretation. This is just your very crude, anti-legal THEORY.
You said: “Please don’t get stuck with theories. You have to evolve with the times. :)”
It’s clearly you who’s stucking with “theories”, dear blogger. “Hate speech” is always the hallmark of every leftist/statist society. Do we have any law that penalizes “hate speech” here?
For your information, “hate speech” is a legal crime introduced in some countries. We don’t have that kind of totalitarian law yet in the Philippines. However, Sen. Bong Revilla passed a Senate bill that seeks to penalize anyone for mentioning “Muslim” or “Islam” in any article, news report, or blog that contains a story or account on terrorism. LINK: http://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/10/22/dhimmirevilla/
So who’s speaking about theories then? Kindly tell me the specific “theory” that I mentioned in my first comment?
I already mentioned those things in my blog:
“The right to say just about anything publicly can also result in harm to other individuals or group of people. In effect, each and every individual still needs other laws to protect him or her from unfair attacks coming from those who practice “freedom of speech.†Other laws to protect individuals include anti-bullying and defamation laws.
and:
“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.”
Please read my blog again because you obviously missed a lot of points. Labelling me “leftist/statist” will not make your arguments any better too.
BTW, you just proved that “the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations” when you mentioned that “hate speech” is a legal crime in some countries.
A good case in point is Carlos Celdran’s act to practice his free speech. So you might ask me, “so there it is, Carlos Celdran’s right to free speech is not absolute!” http://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/10/01/fascist-celdran/ You simply missed the point then. You have to understand that you’re not alone in this country and that others have their rights, too. You cannot simply say I am free to I have the right to do everything I wanna do. You simply forgot why a government exists. The government exists to protect your rights from criminals or any rights-violator. Let me repeat since it seems you have your own constitutional THEORY or Constitution. Free speech and the bill of rights are a limitation on possible government abuse or any of its agents. It is in fact a recognition of our rights- that if we wanted to live as free men, we are entitled to rights to Life, Liberty, Property, and pursuit of Happiness. You cannot simply storm your enemy’s house and then claim you have a right to free speech. This is what Celdran did. What he did is that we violated the Church’s or the Catholic priests’ right to practice religion and to property to simply practice his free speech. The Constitution is a limitation on state powers, while statutes (Revised Penal Code, Civil Code, Family Code) are a limitation on individuals’ affairs. Yes, we are entitled to our liberty because this is part of our humanity, but we’re not entitled to kill or slander others because there are statutes the penalize the act of murder or libel.
What you don’t get, blogger, is that all those listed “rights” in the bill of rights are a protection against the state. Since it is a long-established rule that we have to follow the interpretation of the country where we borrowed some constitutional provisions like the bill of rights, we have to look at the American interpretation and jurisprudence. This is what you missed, which explains some flaws in your article (e.g., free speech). If you try to study law, you would understand that the bill of rights, which contains the right to free speech, to practice religion, etc., is intended to limit the powers of the federal government and its agent. It is a recognition of our rights. Since we borrowed this concept, we have to apply the American interpretation.
Now, that is the reason why you believe in “hate speeches”.
You said, and I find it VERY disturbing: “BTW, you just proved that “the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations†when you mentioned that “hate speech†is a legal crime in some countries.”
You have to understand that there are free countries and un-free countries. America and the Philippines remain free countries because we, individuals, can still speak our minds. However, some countries like China, Cuba, North Korea, and Venezuela limit the free speech of their citizens in the name of public welfare or some public good. Not all countries are equal in terms of degree of freedom and their treatment of their own citizens. Hate speech can be anything that paints the state, the bureaucrats, some groups of people like Muslims, Christians, gays, and minorities, in “bad light”. In other words, hate speech is anything that can allegedly hurt the collecting feelings of any group or entity.
Yes, there are hate speech laws in other countries, but that does not prove your premise that free speech is not absolute. The reason why it is not absolute in some countries is because their government do not respect the rights of their citizens. I tell you, your exhortations will certainly become a reality once we become a socialist or a fascist country.
@Vincenton Post
When and where did I say that the bill of rights are NOT a protection against the state? I said it is NOT just solely for protection against government abuse and interference. And I didn’t forget that “the government exists to protect your rights from criminals or any rights-violator“. As I mentioned in my blog: 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.
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 not recognise hate speech. Americans recognise it so you have to apply their interpretation.
And you actually believe that our government respect the rights of our citizens?
@Vincent Post, you seem to be simply repeating what the author says — i.e., (1) that free speech is a civil right that should not be abused and (2) that its original intent was to limit the powers of the government. That I believe is the message of this blog post. You merely repeated it in the guise of some bizarre “counter”-argument to this blog which it seems you failed to understand fully. Perhaps you should read the blog carefully before you shoot off another comment because you’ll simply continue to expose yourself as a chump if you continue down the line you started. 😀
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 we live in societies that have enshrined these notions at the very fabric of their thinking.
No doubt to be “free” and “happy” are nice things to have. But to see them as “rights” is an artificial notion ingrained in our heads by generations of ambient messages — the victory of the “allies” in World War II, the Cold War, wars against “terror” and stuff like that. All noble ideals of course. But artificial constructs just the same. By saying these are absolutes, you frame your thinking using a very small subset of humanities vast range of philosophies. Western philosophy just happens to be the philosophy we live by. But that does not necessarily mean it is the only one.
So think carefully before you make any assertions about your “absolutes” dude. You simply give us better insights into just how small your mind is with every word that you publish that builds upon that sort of thinking.
@Ilda
I have some (serious) misgivings regarding this statement quoted by Froilan.
“â€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. On your account, why is emphasis given on the ‘receiver’ more than on the ‘sender’ when it is the sender that is the agent of free speech?
Also, when we tend to view speech as ‘silver bullets’ or ‘something to protect something’, we usually set aside ‘self-expression’. Of course I know that self-expression ends when it steps on the right of others, but I wonder why it is so disregarded in the discussions of free speech.
Like his one I found:
“Estrella [Alfon]…was an institution. When we had those early PEN meetings, she was always there. She had a story published, it was pretty tame in the ’40s and ’50s….The Catholic Women’s League, I think, or the Holy Name Society….filed a case against her for pornography. It was a very interesting case and she thought that the writers would rise up in arms to defend her. She was very disappointed because in the municipal court hearing, there were so few who attended.”
That was from F. Sionil Jose’s interview collection, “Conversations with F. Sionil Jose” (Vera-Reyes, Quezon City, 1991). I’m jsut wondering – Why is the ‘receiver’ almost always the focus of free speech discussions more than the ‘sender’? (I’m not saying that one is disregarded altogether; I’m just stating which I think gets more love.) Is it because the receivers are more numerous? Or is it because they enjoy relative power over the individual? What now of the sender, who has to cope up first with multitudinous institutions that are easy to take offense upon some select remarks?
***
Regaridng the media – I agree with your take on the media. It’s just that we don’t practice our free speech enough – we accept too much.
But, as I said to Toro – we’re free to cut off all ties with the sender by cutting off the medium. Which I don’t really recommend. =)
Media may have their part in rationing self-expression – you are allowed to express yourself only as long as you reference yourself to them. “I hold this point because ABS-CBN said it, etc., etc.” We usually feel alienated when you insist upon other references. No one gets us.
By the way – here’s my Facebook note:
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=214602475218992
=)
@Cy
Re: your blog. I don’t think he was trying to exclude you. He just didn’t like your style. My advice is to take what he said with a grain of salt. Sometimes people tell us things that force us to examine where we went wrong and that is a good thing. There is always room for improvement.
Just today, I learned a lot from dealing with a loser at the AP Crowd who just couldn’t get it. Unfortunately, it’s only in the end that people normally find out that they were actually dealing with someone with some sort of a mental condition. By then, it is too late and your day has been wasted.
@Cy
I don’t know where you got the impression that the receiver is almost always the focus of free speech. It is both receiver and the giver.
You should be able to express yourself the way you want to. However, you have to be prepared for how other people will react to the matter with which you deliver your message. You can’t please everyone. If you insist on singing “My Way” but don’t have the voice of Sinatra then you have to be prepared for all the booos 🙂
@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 is the sender that says something, in a way the sender should be highlighted more. In a way, why do we often consider institutions (the most likely receivers) more important than the source of free speech (the sender)? In my example, Alfon is less important than those whom she ‘offended’, so she got punished. Is such imbalance in power justified? Why not err in the side of liberty instead?
For instance: in a flag-burning, why is the recipient of the message of flag-burning (whatever mammoth institution the flag represents) considered more important than the sender of the message (flag-burner) with respect to free speech? What if we try to reverse the amounts of relative importance that get?
You said:
“You should be able to express yourself the way you want to. However, you have to be prepared for how other people will react to the matter with which you deliver your message.”
—> For instance, this is one such statement that highlights the receiver more than the sender. You could have said “You should be able to express yourself the way you want to, and rest assured, unless you step on the rights of others, your right to do so is as extensive as possible.” Why is it that, not only here but elsewhere, only a few seem to have the guts to tell something like this? Is it because they have a sublime fear of offending institutions?
***
BTW, regarding my FB note, I didn’t know where I went wrong when I commented that. It’s as if he had absolute license to determine what the ‘zeitgeist’ is supposed to be, and that ‘zeitgeist’ alienates our literary sensibilities out of the national development solutions (as I have shown in my FB note).
And so if ‘self-expression’ is kept out of national development solutions (in some nations, it is woefully ‘suppressed’), what will happen to us who exchange ideas, and not other resources deemed essential by national development solutions (as FSJ thinks). 😉
P.S. You know how short comments trigger long associations in my being. 😉
@Cy
I have a simple answer: it’s because there’s already too much emphasis on the person’s right to speech. But there is very little thought to how the speech will affect the other person.
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.
I can tell you that he knows what a metaphor is.
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?
I know what a metaphor is. You were using a simile. 🙂
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 bring down the President of the Philippines. I tend to think that Philippine free speech is fairly rambunctious and open. Certainly the editorial pages contain about every perspective known to mankind. This is no Libya, although it may also be no US in terms of how people read criticisms.
I don’t know what kind of system of communication you have in mind that is better than the ones that exists. The problem is not in the communication, it is in the culture of Ego. That’s what needs to be change.
@Joe America
I don’t want to bring down the President of the Philippines. I want him to change so he can fulfil his promise of “change.” And I don’t have to use manipulation to do that, just common sense.
Certainly there is room for improvement in the kind of system of communication that exist in the Philippines today. As I said, we have to 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.
Unfortunately, the reason it is difficult to achieve that kind of system is because of the culture of Ego.
Okay, I agree with that goal, to urge President Aquino to improvement, and I certainly agree that the culture of Ego is the foundation of all the troubles that people face in the Philippines, including misuse of communication media. Like the abusive number of commercials run during Pacquiao fights on public television, and how the sound gets louder during commercials. And more . . .
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.
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?
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.
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 “rightâ€? Fascinating. Where exactly did that notion come from? That’s up there with the notion that everyone has the “right†to pursue “happinessâ€. Is it now? Is everyone entitled to be “happyâ€? 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 we live in societies that have enshrined these notions at the very fabric of their thinking.”
Well, there’s no way to deal with such a IDIOTIC MIND. It’s either-or. It’s either you’re free or unfree. Freedom is absolute, unless any entity like the government limits it with dictatorial edicts or executive orders.
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.
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 not recognise hate speech. Americans recognise it so you have to apply their interpretation.”
For her information, there is no such recognition of hate speech in the US. What does she mean by “recognise”? That there is a law penalizing “hate speech”? There’s no such law in the US. If there were such law, the Americans would have staged the greatest protest in American history!
Can’t even address the person you are having a discussion with directly?
Pinoy nga naman talaga;
Parang aso.
Matangkad lang kapag nakatayo.
– 😀
@Vincenton Post
You sound agitated. Tsk.tsk. Relax. You might be mistaking me for someone who is against free speech. As I said in my blog:
“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.”
I observed that that the blogger is speaking in statist terms. That’s what she calls non-theory or reality. Of course, “freedom of speech alone does NOT really protect everyone’s civil liberties” if the government adopts laws or edicts that would disrespect free speech, as when they pass anti-hate speech laws or any penal legislation that would punish anyone from making “illegal” speech. One good example in Edcel Lagman’s RH bill, which punishes “malicious disinformation of the intents and provisions” of the Act.
Hmmm, for some reason these words “This is my last reply to that blog since the blogger has a lot of interpretative and factual errors” seem to echo in the distance…
Yan talaga kahirapan ng Pinoy. Mahilig magsalita nang patapos, kahit wala namang natapos. 😀
@Vincenton Post
Your paranoia is evident in the way you label people “statist” every chance you get. You don’t even realise that we actually agree on a lot of points. You just simply want to look more knowledgable.
As I said: relax. Not everyone is a communist. You read too much Ayn Rand. 😉
@Vincent Post
Eh kahit hindi illegal eh, kita mo naman nangyari sa Hostage Crisis noong 2010. The reporters went beyond there “Freedom of Speech” that caused deaths of the Chinese tourists. They agitated the hostage taker which gave him more reason to kill the people inside.
What the article is implying is dapat may limitations. Freedom does not mean “no limitations,” still it has to be observed for the sake of protecting other people.
A single word, ika nga, can lit an enormous amount of fire. Maglabas ka nga ng chismis diyan panigurado ilang days lang lahat ng tao alam na.
In the words of Buddha:
“Words have the power to both destroy and heal. When words are both true and kind, they can change our world.”
Speech is both a curse and a blessing. Using it improperly like a gun will result to killing someone or a lot of people that’s why it must be observed.
This Vincenton Post says “statist” like it’s a bad thing.
He could’ve just posted an Amazon link to “Atlas Shrugged” or any other of Rand’s objectivist dreck and called it a day; would’ve saved a lot of bandwidth.
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
I don’t think that the measures will actually stop the protesters but it will lessen and control the consequence of their action.
Thanks!
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/
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!
That’s exactly my point Edward. Why do people like Vincenton Post act like he is on a warpath? If he sees errors or flaws in the article, he just needs to point it out. Or if he does not agree with the article, that is no problem too. He can’t force people to agree with him.
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. We just witnessed that with in this article.
So if you want to talk, never forget to include respect in your conversation.
As the Russian Spetsnaz (Special Forces) rule:
Never disrespect your enemy, it will be your greatest mistake.
I could not have agreed more.
They certainly feel more superior than their commenters. I am not surprised just by looking at the link,
“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.â€
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.
Matagal na nga nila ginagawa yang “reform”, hanggang ngayon ganyan pa rin.
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.
They also read too much into it. I just spent the whole day trying to convince this Vincenton Post that I do not have any other agenda in writing this blog other than to enlighten myself and other people. If people see any kind of error or flaw, they can simply point it out. There is no need for drama. The problem is some people just want to grandstand all the time.
@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.
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.
“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.â€
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 grievancesâ€
The right of reply does not mean to ABRIDGE the freedom of speech. For me, providing for the right of reply means the freedom of speech will become more persuasive. And not to forget that this will not discriminate whether your moneyed or not (different from our libel law).
Of course, some will interpret the Article III Section 4 of our Bill of Rights as an absolute one (slandering, defaming somebody or inciting hate are freedom of speeches/expressions). And I might agree with them provided there is that right of reply.”
Another snippet (a long one if I’m not boring the readers)-
“-Isn’t it illogical to claim that a news is their exclusive on the airwave? The news watchers are already locked on their TV channel so what is the point? Does it mean that if their news does not have the disclaimer of exclusiveness then it is the time for the news watchers to switch their TV channel to a different one? (I’m confused by this Tunying Taberna who, in every morning time update for TV watchers announces current time in vernacular with a translation in Chinese. The heck, I still have to meet a Chinese who can’t understand Tagalog and is watching their program. Mamalasin sya pag napanood ni Jay Leno ang program nya and it will be another “only in the Philippinesâ€)
– Where did they get their mathematics? There was once a survey that GMA was the most corrupt president ever in Philippines and these two loonies, Webb and Tunying, from UKG show, with their patented smirks, put some more fire to highlight the issue. Take note that it was a survey. How about the other survey that says with the same resulting magnitude that Filipinos believe in Cupid as real? Can we correlate it? But by the next day, there was a news release that it was not GMA who is the most corrupt but Marcos based on data (not that stupid survey)! So what this Webb woman said? For her, it is still GMA. Count the number of how long she is serving as president and compare with 21 years of Marcos. She is the more corrupt according to her mathematics. (He he he he he at he he he he uli).
– Tunying in his advice to FGMA on cases being hurled on him. Since the President is “touring†US, why can’t he go with her. By that, if he is guilty of what he is being accused of, the US immigration will arrest him in the US soil and if he is not then it’s a let go situation. Since when is the time the accused has to prove his innocence first before the accuser has to substantiate his accusation?”
And how our local quack media practices their freedom of speech/expression/information?
“DON’T LET FACTS STAND IN THE WAY OF A GOOD STORYâ€.
– 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.
@Trosp
That’s really funny!
Thanks!
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 and its agents. For instance, the right against unreasonable searches and seizures does not extend to private individuals. In the landmark case of People v. Marti, the court ruled that the bill of rights may not be taken against the acts of private individuals. It may only be directed against the state and its agencies tasked with the enforcement of the law.
The blogger needs to understand that the community guideline she copied from a university website is only applicable to privately owned properties, such as schools, subdivisions, condominiums, golf clubs, resorts, hotels, private buildings, and private homes. Nobody has the right to invoke anyone’s right to free speech within anybody’s property.
It’s too long. CONTINUE READING… http://fvdb.wordpress.com/2011/04/22/in-defense-of-absolute-rights-and-free-speech/
Hey, dude. You didn’t get the whole point of the blog. You need to think outside the square 😉
I don’t give a hoot about your Ayn Rand. Who cares if what I’m saying is not aligned with her principles? Obviously you and your minion Aristogeek are the only ones who care.
Notice how no one reacts to the link you keep pasting at the AP Crowd? It’s because you don’t have any credibility anymore. I don’t even know why you are still there. Even Warlito Vicentio does not delete comments but you kept deleting comments from your blog. It just shows that you are not a real advocate of free speech.
It’s my opinion and I don’t care if you don’t agree with it. And it’s not a fallacy just because my opinion is not the same as Ayn Rand’s or yours.
Get a life!
@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
@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.
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 me online. Well, this one is better, I think lol! Here’s what I’m talking about… http://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/04/12/the-highly-appalling-plagiarism-of-the-filipino-free-farters/
FYI, this is just a piece of shit compared to the more honest Ayn Rand-bash articles that I debunked online. You’re free to tour my blogsite. At least those people had the guts to claim they read her work. As for you, you simply did a little bit research and worked your little peanut. That’s what **** did with her hilarious blog. Did you see how I debunked it? Now you can never react to it without resorting to trivialities. Isn’t that funny? She doesn’t even know what she’s talking about. Well, only intellectual people and people who have adequate knowledge of the law could understand the errors in her fallacy-riddled blog.
Here’s what I learned from Ayn Rand:
Ayn Rand taught me the cardinal value of honesty- first honesty with one’s self, and second honesty with others. This is consistent with her virtue of selfishness. A person who is not honest with his own self cannot be honest with others. Before one takes on any issue, one has to take upon himself to study the matters involved. One has to have an adequate knowledge of an issue before one can make his own moral or intellectual judgment. This is the reason why I only deal with issues that I am very much familiar with. Familiarity with or having sufficient knowledge of any issue or matter saves one’s self from committing any act of dishonesty or betrayal of one’s self, such as lying, plagiarism, smearing, and the like.
http://fvdb.wordpress.com/2011/04/19/the-left-smears-ayn-rand/
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. 😀
@Vincenton Post (Froilan Vincent)
Here’s what I learned about Ayn Rayd: most of her supporters tend to act like cult members. They are so obsessed with her teachings that as a result, they get paranoid. They end up thinking that everyone is a communist.
I DON’T CARE ABOUT AYN RAND as much as you do and that is the reason why I don’t need to give a rebuttal to your blog.
You just proved that I was right anyway. When you deleted the comments from your own blogsite, comments that were critical of your views, you confirmed that even simple guidelines can limit free speech.
Buti pa ako I don’t delete your comments kahit sablay 😉
Goodbye! 😉
@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.
I already responded on his blog. That should suffice. Thanks. 🙂
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…
@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.
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!
Sure blind, ok. Anything else?
@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? 😀
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.
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
Ignorant of what? Ignorant of the teachings of Ayn Rand? And for that we are stupid?!? What makes you think that my article is about Ayn Rand anyway? Please read it again.
Do yourself a favor and stop hanging out with Froilan. He is not good for you.
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/
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). 😀
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 post has not complied with:
All of the following are considered plagiarism:
1) Turning in someone else’s work as your own.
(Did the blog poster claimed it as her own? Like making a claim it as her own opinion.)
2) Copying words or ideas from someone else without giving credit.
(Why not let the offended party call the attention of the poster. We don’t know if the offended party that is being referred to is really the original source.)
3) Failing to put a quotation in quotation marks.
(Did she fail on that one?)
4) Giving incorrect information about the source of a quotation.
5)Changing words but copying the sentence structure of a source without giving credit
6) Copying so many words or ideas from a source that it makes up the majority of your work, whether you give credit or not (see our section on “fair use” rules)
Items 4 to 6 are academic.
We’re on a blogsphere and everybody is loose in citing their source. (Associated Press is charging any excerpting of their online articles instead of going through with litigative approach.)
I might as well visit your blog and see if there is no hypocrisy behind your accusation.
Let’s see who is the real stupid.
@Aristogeek
Thanks for the publicity. Because you and Froilan Vincent kept promoting this blog, a lot more people read it. I’m glad Froilan attached the link to this blog. Unfortunately for you, the people who read my blog did not see anything wrong with the article and the way I used the definition of Defamation Law. Obviously it came from the Net so what is the big deal?!? Obvious naman diba?
I believe that when people read my article, they understood that an official term such as Defamation Law could only come from somewhere. You are making a big deal of nothing. You missed the point of the article tuloy because your main objective was to find errors and your perceived “flaws.”
And my article is not about laws or Ayn Rand. It is about advocating for responsible speech. More importantly, it is my opinion. There is nothing fallacious about having a different opinion. Cool ka lang, ok?
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!
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 probably is that the neighboring cities, even when at war with one another, never form an alliance with rebellious serfs, rebellions not being for their interest, since they the
It’s from –
http://www.constitution.org/ari/polit_02.htm
And it was not cited. at his post
Plagiarism by his definition.
You certified asshole and moron!
Why are you still around?
Wow, I been reading this for days and this Vincent guy has anger management issues.
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.
Ay naku Trosp. Buti ka pa na gets mo. There are so many Pinoys who love to grandstand by proving they are more knowledgeable than other people. Vincenton Post and Artistogreek are included in that.
@ 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 QUOTATION! Do you understand that? That’s plagiarism. When I checked, Ilda based most of her work on ONLINE SOURCES.
Fourth, you should know the proper concept of PLAGIARISM, ******!
Fifth, instead of TROLLING the Vincenton blog, why not make your own arguments? Your trolling simply means you’re a BUNCH OF ****** PEEPS!
Hey ‘Aristogeek’, you wanna see Stoopid? Check out how ur boss got featured in a noted Blogger’s article here. 😀
Hoy @Aristogeek!
Wag ka naman gung gong.
Does APA/MLA/Chicago U have guidelines for blog posts??!
Pakihanap na lang.
Thanks.
Cy
@Aristogeek
Is that your best?
According to you –
“First, I identified Aristotle as the source of some of my blog posts, stupid. Second, these works are UNCOPYRIGHTED!!! Do you know the concept of copyright, stupid?”
(Hey stupid, you’ve quoted Aristole but what is your source? You’ve got it from his treatise?
Uncopyrighted??? Copyright and plagiarism are not apple to apple comparison. As I’ve commented, if plagiarism is a crime, then, there is no need for copyright law. He he he, it’s obvious that one is beyond your comprehension. I’ll suggest you read my comment slowly. BTW stupid, can you educate us on how you’ve determined it is uncopyrighted? Have you known the link that I’ve provided is the original one?)
Second, Vincenton said that out of SARCASM. But it’s clear he used the words “LIFTEDâ€, “BORROWED†and “COPIED.†He just let the readers decide whether plagiarism was committed. And ergo, THERE WAS PLAGIARISM.
(What I’m saying is you’re following his line of thought. I don’t care if it is sarcasm or anything else.)
Third, Ilda copied the lines VERBATIM without paraphrasing! If she wanted to avoid being accused of PLAGIARISM, she should have used DIRECT QUOTATION! Do you understand that? That’s plagiarism. When I checked, Ilda based most of her work on ONLINE SOURCES.
(Would I care? What I’m highlighting is your hypocrisy. I can still pick out a lot of items in your blog that you have plagiarized.)
Fifth, instead of TROLLING the Vincenton blog, why not make your own arguments? Your trolling simply means you’re a BUNCH OF STUPID PEEPS!
(Hey stupid, you link us to Vinceton blog and now you’re accusing me of trolling. BTW, I’m also his regular blog reader. Hey, stupid, I haven’t read any of your argument in this post except calling us here stupid.)
He he he. This past three days were dull days for me. Balikan mo agad ako para masaya. Just make it sure you also understand what you’re blabbing. You can fake it if it will really comes to the point that you’re that shallow.
Parting words, read my comment again. And read it slowly and comprehending each word. It’s very evident you have a comprehension problem.
It’s useless to argue with ****** people like you. It seems that you’re all Ilda’s zombies hihi…
Try to educate yourself on the proper concept of plagiarism, stupid… http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/writing/plagiarism.pd
Nah. It’s really YOU who fail to present anything here that represents any evidence of any ability on your part to think independently of the textbooks you seem to rely on continuously for any sort of drivel you publish on the Net. Tough luck. 😀
I thought I could have some fun on this dull days because of this stupid astrogeek as my punching bag. Hey astrogeek stupid boy, nothing anymore. You’ve even provided us a link for us to check what plagiarism is. A link that does not linked. Wala ka ng ginawang tama. Page not found. Sablay ka na naman.
Not satisfied with the one I’ve provide earlier – plagiarism.org?
Bye-bye asshole. Better luck next time.
Hahahahaha…good one Trosp
They can’t find anything else to pin me down that’s why they are doing this. I don’t even know why they hate me. I’ve never encountered them before but for some reason they think I am attacking Ayn Rand’s principles.
Thanks for your comment Froilan’s slave. Your claim is not flying. It looks like nobody is buying it. Tough luck, dude. Don’t let the door hit you on your way out 😉
@Aristogeek
This is the new bullying of today. I mean when some random person pissed you off, you go and write more than 3000 words worth of crap article that looks like he just had angry sex with Elton John, now that’s some crazy shit man. I’m not just talking about angry sex, I mean really really angry sex. Hell, I was suspecting that he had threesome with Clay Aiken.
Now Vincent wrote another piece of crap article that looks like he had threesome with a French Poodle and a Saint Bernard because it’s even more full of crap.
Seriously, Vincent’s article has just made Homer Simpson look like a rocket scientist. I mean Celine Dion’s songs make more sense than what he just wrote, I can listen to her sing all day than read one forth of what he just wrote. I’m guessing the one who taught him how to write was Oscar from Sesame Street ‘cause it’s full of garbage.
@Ron
These people have serious issues they need to resolve. Sadly, most of the people running the country are probably like them. 🙁
Debates like this (those found in the comments section of articles like this) always end the same way; people start insulting each other and calling each other stupid.
Though it’s not against the law, it is of no benefit to anybody.
Excellent piece, as usual.
Thanks Mitana109 😉
“Article III. Section 4. 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.”
So no to libel law – in any form. If our legislators think we need ’em, then make changes to Section 4 first. Just my two layman cents.
May I give my simple observations? I hope you don’t mind?
1) This discussion is too intellectual for an ordinary Pinoy. Since most can’t even think whether what they watch on TV is something that can help them develop their critical-thinking abilities, they read gossip magazines about celebrities, and listen to most discussions on the radio which many times are AC-DC and can’t even spot the difference.
2) As much as is guaranteed in our Constitution, those “freedoms” that you speak about, esp. in free speech, there ought to be a balanced reporting when it comes to things that are newsworthy and are of national interest, and I have observed that ever since I can remember, news reporting has become worst as I grew up, culminating during the martial law when all that one can see or read about were the “goodness” of the govt. that one had to read the alternative media in order for him to “balance” what was really happening.
3) From that time on, after martial law, I have observed that the media has slidden down further that it was only years later, even these recent years had we known of what truly happened during the Cory years, down to her son’s and which was exacerbated by the fact the he was a “vindictive” one if one person would go against him or challenge him to his face. His admin spent much money for the use of media to cover his inadequacies as president and silent or control his critics. Thus, an alternative media had to be established. Thus, this GRP.
3) However one discusses it intellectually the fact remains that our people are non-critical thinkers and thus, the media has also the responsibility to help our people think by feeding them with balanced reports so that they can weigh things.
4) The way I see things, the heavier responsibility lies on balanced reporting by the media because in the first place, they are the people who critically think, the people, the recipients of the message will just react in accordance to what is being fed to them, since most of them are vulnerable to believe lies and half-truths.
As to the USA that one “commentator” had alluded to many times, I would like to say this:
1) seems like even their presidential candidates have violated their “rights” to privacy by those many “leaks” going left and right even a few days before election……
2) there’s even one who’s now in the custody of Russia, who sought temporary asylum for not being able to “stomach” their country’s spying activities even on private individuals’ communication/s not only in their country but around the world…….so much for the sanctity of “freedom of speech” (sigh!!!!)
To Vincenton Post,
One “always” has the right to tell one’s opinion. Just because the WRITER’S opinion does not coincide with your podium, it doesn’t give you also a ticket to shame her side. If you expect the word respect, then try to give it as well..
I really find it funny when this article is applicable for every President we have.