When free speech hinders free speech – The Manila Times

25/01/2021 9:32:00 AM

IT has happened more than once in the past. I write or post an opinion that runs counter to the beliefs rabidly held by some — and I harvest an abundance of slurs, insults, virtual catcalls and article-length attacks on my person.

IT has happened more than once in the past. I write or post an opinion that runs counter to the beliefs rabidly held by some — and I harvest an abundance of slurs, insults, virtual catcalls and article-length attacks on my person.

IT has happened more than once in the past. I write or post an opinion that runs counter to the beliefs rabidly held by some — and I harvest an abundance of slurs, insults, virtual catcalls and article-length attacks on my person. Well-meaning friends and family have urged me to keep “controversial” positions to myself […]

IT has happened more than once in the past. I write or post an opinion that runs counter to the beliefs rabidly held by some — and I harvest an abundance of slurs, insults, virtual catcalls and article-length attacks on my person. Well-meaning friends and family have urged me to keep “controversial” positions to myself to be spared all the indignation and insult that usually follow my exercise of free expression.

Much as I am grateful for their concern and I appreciate their kindness, I have continued to make my views known, no matter that they may not pick up the common refrain.Professor Clarita Carlos is a well-known academic. She is not only a professor at the University of the Philippines (UP). She teaches at the National Defense College of the Philippines and has been consulted on different national concerns. Recently, she posted her views on the furor following the abrogation of the accord between UP and the Department of National Defense. I read that part where she made clear that professors at UP are not babysitters, that students should know who they are allying themselves with and that they are supposed to take care of their own affairs. “Bahala kayo sa buhay niyo,” if I recall correctly, was one of the expressions she used. And she got such a barrage of insults that she posted what I took to be a farewell letter to Facebook. That alarmed me, because that meant one more voice of reason and sobriety withdrawing from the chaotic agora that social media is.

Read more:
The Manila Times »

How tedious license renewal requirements result in push to amend CPD law

For years, Filipino professionals have frowned upon the tedious process of earning units from costly seminars just to have their licenses renewed Read more >>

[OPINION] Should stars pay for their politics?'Free speech, as they say, is not free.' Opinion

Twitter uses Dunedin conference to explain approach to political expressionTwitter explains its stance on free speech at academic forum in New Zealand. Wow

EU wants PH to address human rights, free speech concernsThe Philippine government must address issues and concerns on human rights, freedom of information and expression, and political persecution of its critics, the European Union said. Human rights and free speech concerns? Why because of Delima and Ressa? Where do you get your data? From them? Or CHR? Do you still not see the connivance here? Do your reasearch with integrity and not plain bias. And stop meddling with our affairs! Mind yours!

'There is strength in numbers': Rights group urges Filipinos to unite on challenges vs free speechMANILA - Human rights group Karapatan on Saturday called on Filipinos to unite on issues supposedly challenging one's freedom of speech in the country, amid the 'environment of impunity.' May issue ba sa free speech ngayong 2021? Gumagawa lang kayo ng sarili niyong issue sa totoo lang.

Roque says gov't respects free speech of Filipinos as SWS survey reports citizens’ apprehensionFilipinos have nothing to fear regarding the exercise of free speech in the country, according to Presidential spokesman Harry Roque. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣sure? You have free speech, but no that when you open your mouth, they will shut it permanently, 6 feet under!

Read more IT has happened more than once in the past.Jan 26, 2021 3:52 PM PHT In the Philippines, politicians and artistas make for strange but helplessly entangled bedfellows., addressed the conference from Singapore.Among the issues discussed during the first-ever Sub-Committee on Good Governance, Rule of Law and Human Rights under the new European Union-Philippines Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA) are the country’s anti-illegal drugs campaign, the cases of Senator Leila de Lima and journalist Maria Ressa, the right to freedom of information and expression, and the right to peaceful assembly.

I write or post an opinion that runs counter to the beliefs rabidly held by some — and I harvest an abundance of slurs, insults, virtual catcalls and article-length attacks on my person. Well-meaning friends and family have urged me to keep “controversial” positions to myself to be spared all the indignation and insult that usually follow my exercise of free expression. Even their relatives become beneficiaries of this borrowed light: superstar presidential daughter Kris Aquino rises and falls, inextricably steeped in family politics; presidential son Mikey Arroyo manages to gift us with a middling movie and political career; and moms, dads, children, and even extramarital relations run for and win offices. Much as I am grateful for their concern and I appreciate their kindness, I have continued to make my views known, no matter that they may not pick up the common refrain. “Everyone talks about free expression or free speech in the United States and they think of it as this sacrosanct right that has no barriers. Professor Clarita Carlos is a well-known academic. What’s changed in the past few years is the democratization of communication: where suddenly, every Juan has a platform to voice their opinion and a chance to “influence;” where few famous people professionally vet their messaging before posting on social media; where the internet never forgets and has receipts of (perceived or actual) misdeeds; and where the news cycle (fake or otherwise) is 24/7 and everyone has a cellphone to document, witness, and magnify your every move. She is not only a professor at the University of the Philippines (UP). The union also raised the issue of the possible resumption of the death penalty law, which it said it “opposes in all circumstances.

She teaches at the National Defense College of the Philippines and has been consulted on different national concerns. A star doesn’t need to be a politician to become political, and the average Joe doesn’t need much beyond the zeitgeist to “cancel” them if they say or do something offensive. We also know that globally people value other things. Recently, she posted her views on the furor following the abrogation of the accord between UP and the Department of National Defense. I read that part where she made clear that professors at UP are not babysitters, that students should know who they are allying themselves with and that they are supposed to take care of their own affairs. Boycotting an erring star has been the penalty of choice for their contentious political positions – a lesson ABS-CBN marquee name and Pinoy Big Brother host, Toni Gonzaga, recently weathered. “Bahala kayo sa buhay niyo,” if I recall correctly, was one of the expressions she used. “As a private corporation, we never felt that we would be in the position of affecting the public discourse by a world leader in the way that we obviously had to do that day, because of a fear of a further incitement of violence and what we were seeing, both on our platform and off. And she got such a barrage of insults that she posted what I took to be a farewell letter to Facebook. Not that it mattered much. The senator is a vocal critic of Duterte since he was a mayor of his hometown, Davao City.

That alarmed me, because that meant one more voice of reason and sobriety withdrawing from the chaotic agora that social media is. You post in praise of President Rodrigo Duterte, you are maligned as a Dutertard. More important than measuring the effects of her fleeting brush with “cancellation” though, is another question: should stars like her – and artists in general – be penalized for their personal politics? Two other prominent Duterte-era examples come to mind. “I think back to the attacks in Christchurch and a lot of the work that came from that, the collaborative work across all of our groups. You post in criticism of government, and you are discredited as a “Dilawan.” These labels are not harmless. More recently, the animated film, Hayop Ka! The Nimfa Dimaano Story faced calls for a boycott, too, amid the casting of Robin Padilla. They are instruments of exclusion, techniques of ostracism. This is where your [organizer Sanjana Hattotuwa’s] research but also the government of New Zealand has been so open, looking at these problem spaces across the spectrum of players. But the EU isn’t only concerned about media freedom in the country.

No “decent” Filipino will pay heed to a Dutertard. The quantitative impacts of these boycotts are hard to determine. No “makamasang Pinoy” will have any respect for a Dilawan. And as if this was not bad enough, there are, accompanying these slurs, attacks on one’s person, sometimes extending to the members of one’s family. Even if you were willing to penalize stars as individuals, why should entire film outfits have to pay, too? In international relations, there is a doctrine on proportional response – a complex idea that can boil down to: an eye for an eye. From removal for the worst, most harmful content that could really lead to severe offline harm…. Detractors go so far as to do background checks to fish for juicy and salacious details from one’s personal history by which to skewer one who has dared express a contrary view. There have been posts by thoughtful individuals recently on the most common fallacies committed. You don’t throw a nuke at someone throwing stones.” Among the agenda to fulfill the SDGs is the reaffirmation of the importance of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as other international instruments relating to human rights and international law.

Professor Jemy Gatdula is one academic who has frequently called attention to the propensity for fallacy. Removing that content can actually fuel more conspiracy theories or more distrust. These are what were known in the classical logic of Scholasticism as “material fallacies” — errors having to do not with the form of one’s reasoning, but with the “material” of one’s reasoning. By this logic, probably shouldn’t have been damaged by Aga, and Hayop Ka! because of Binoy, when doing so penalized innocent bystanders (or in the case of Hayop Ka! the innocent animators, one of whom had pleaded their case against the boycott). But the errors committed especially on social media that have both democratized and bastardized free speech are also formal. If you are a Dutertard, then you praise the acts of Duterte.” All the answers will cut to the quick, because it will always hurt to weigh your values and give up one for the other. Hinesley said Twitter was particularly interested in a concept called “algorithmic choice,” which would give users greater control over algorithms that determined what users see on the site. But you praise the acts of Duterte.

Therefore, you are a Dutertard. As a political moderate, I think free speech is a right and a responsibility. How common is that argument? Or this: if you approve of human rights violations, you favor Marcos’ martial law.” But, responding to a question from the audience, Hinesley said she was sceptical of the idea of offering different versions of Twitter to different countries, depending on their views on free expression. But you have written favorably of martial law. Free speech is not a blank check. Therefore you are a protector of human rights violators. These are not material fallacies. Free speech, as they say, is not free. Twitter support Sanjana Hattotuwa , a PhD candidate at NCPACS and the event’s lead organizer, told the Democracy Project that Twitter had provided a small amount of financial support for the conference.

They are formal. As any logician will tell you, they violate the very fundamental rule of modus ponens that every freshman is supposed to have studied, but that more often remains in the notebooks and does not make the necessary transition to thought and to speech. The work and its maker both hold captivating truth and/or beauty. So, there is an awareness that we are wallowing in sophistry in this country, and the silence of academics, professors and right-thinking people in the face of the jeers of a mad rabble only makes things worse. In the lead-up to the Dunedin conference, Twitter that it would partner with NCPACS via the platform’s"#DataForGood" program for a wider project that"would study the ways online conversations can be used to promote tolerance and inclusion instead of division and exclusion. In the face of the prevalence of fallacy, it is the social responsibility of the academic to reintroduce rationality into national discourse, rather than to abstain from it in sheer (quite understandable) exasperation. Clearly our national hero’s execution had been wrong, and local creators the internet disagrees with shouldn’t be sent to Bagumbayan. Ultimately, what is most worrisome about free speech hindering free speech is more than legal.

It is an ethical problem, for the refusal to allow the other his piece is a rejection of the other. He was aware of causality – an act, and the consequences of that act. Christchurch Call The lessons of the Christchurch attacks – and the response by tech companies and governments to them – featured as a main theme throughout the conference, which began the day after the second anniversary of the attacks. It is that dreaded “allergy for the Other” that Levinas writes about in the dedication to his great work L’autrement qu’etre (Otherwise than Being). The overriding desire to silence the Other is a rejection of difference, the repudiation of separation. These are questions today’s creatives – artistas included - should also be asking themselves: What will their opinions accomplish? Is it necessary to speak out? And to what end? While these are tough questions, no one should ever say theirs is an easy job. It is a typical “totalizing” move. On the conference’s second day, Paul Ash , the Prime Minister’s Special Representative on Cyber and Digital and Cyber Coordinator, spoke to the conference about his role in leading work on the Christchurch Call. How dare he sing a different tune? Why should her views be different from mine? True conversation is justice; it is the ethical moment of human existence. Cause and effect here is apolitical: what they do affects their fans, the general public, the success or failure of their projects, and consequently, the fortunes of their co-workers.

While there are the twin gestures of invocation and address, there is, as necessary, that respectful silence that awaits the other’s riposte, because it will never be foreseeable what the other will say, or what the other thinks, precisely because of Otherness. And when our society has reached the point of being suspicious if not hostile to the Other, then we have started on that path that has ended in the worst crimes humanity has ever seen. It takes balls to share parts of yourself with the world and live with the consequences, both in your work and in your personal life. “We did put a floor in around international human rights law, fundamental freedoms and a free, open and secure Internet. .