Still objectionable

Editorial
Philippine Daily Inquirer
06/02/2009

The House of Representatives appears to be dead set on passing the controversial right-of-reply bill before it adjourns sine die this week. The measure has been amended by removing a provision that would impose the penalty of imprisonment on violators and by reducing the fines for violations. Now the congressional railroad is ready to pass the measure, despite the strong objection of the media.

Despite the amendments, the right of reply bill remains objectionable. The congressmen seem to have missed the point we made at the very beginning of the discussion of the bill, and so we will say it again: The right of reply is better realized through editorial discretion and voluntary acts rather than statutory dictation through a state entity or process that infringes upon the freedom of the press.

It is best to allow the media to accord the right of reply to people who want to avail themselves of it through existing procedures and venues instead of giving government the power to dictate to the media what they should do. Give government an inch and there’s no telling what it would do to control media. There are already existing procedures and venues in the major newspapers: the office of the ombudsman or readers’ advocate, the letters to the editor section, the correction box of some newspapers, among other things. Complainants can write directly to the senior editors to ask to be given the opportunity to reply to news stories or articles that they consider adverse to them.

For the members of the Philippine Press Institute, there is the Philippine Press Council whose main concern now is to afford news sources and news subjects the right of reply.

Complaining parties can always file libel suits as a last resort.

These venues and procedures are all available in the major newspapers. They are also being adopted by the smaller papers and even by the community newspapers. So, why does government want to have a say in enforcing the right of reply and why does it want to have coercive power in implementing this right?

We reiterate our objection to the right of reply—yes, even to the so-called “watered-down” version—on the following grounds:

1. A right of reply bill would violate the right of journalists under the freedom of the press clause of the Constitution to edit or determine the contents of their publications.

2. A statutory right of reply would have a chilling effect on free speech; it would discourage journalists from commenting on controversial issues when they know they can be coerced to provide free space and free air time for all replies.

3. It would impose a penalty on the basis of the contents of a newspaper. The first phase of the penalty resulting from the compelled printing of a reply is exerted in terms of the cost of printing. It would take away space that could be devoted to other material that the newspaper may have preferred to publish.

4. It would impose the virtue of responsibility on the media. Former Chief Justice Warren Earl Burger of the US Supreme Court said that “[p]ress responsibility is not mandated by the Constitution and like many other virtues, it cannot be legislated. “

5. It would affect not just the traditional media—newspapers, radio and TV—but it could also lead to Internet censorship because it also covers bloggers, websites, e-mail, social networking sites, texters and even iPod users. This was noted by Kabataan party-list Rep. Raymond Palatino last week.

Even if the measure is passed by Congress, it could be a futile exercise because it would be vetoed by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. The Inquirer reported last Feb. 27 that President Macapagal-Arroyo pledged not to sign any bill curtailing press freedom and suggested that she would veto the controversial right of reply measure if Congress passed it. Similar stories were carried by the Philippine Star, Page 1, Feb. 27; Malaya, Page B14, Feb. 26; and the Manila Times, Page 1, Feb. 27.

If the right of reply bill is passed by Congress, we will hold the President to her promise. If she reneges on her promise, then the press will have no recourse but to wage its fight against the controversial measure all the way to the Supreme Court.

Right of reply bill to cover bloggers

By Philip Tubeza
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 21:23:00 05/30/2009

MANILA, Philippines--The controversial right of reply bill will not only affect print and broadcast media, but could lead to Internet censorship since it also covers bloggers, “texters” and even iPod users, a party-list lawmaker warned Saturday.

Kabataan party-list Rep. Mong Palatino said the bill’s sponsor in the House, Manila Rep. Bienvenido Abante, admitted during interpellation that House Bill No. 3306 also covers websites, e-mails, Internet social networking sites and other electronic devices in its scope.

Palatino noted that Section 1 of HB 3306 states, “All persons, natural or judicial, who are accused directly or indirectly of committing, having committed, or are criticized by innuendo, suggestion or rumor for any lapse in behavior in public or private life shall have the right to reply to charges or criticisms published in newspapers, magazines, newsletters or publications circulated commercially or for free, or aired or broadcast over radio, television, websites or through any electronic device.”

“The bill, therefore, would not only affect media outfits and journalists but also all website owners, website masters, e-mail account holders and other netizens who are not necessarily media practitioners,” said Palatino who has been a blogger since 2004.

He said the bill would affect “the more than five million bloggers and millions more of Internet users in the country.”

“My fear is that when this bill comes to law, it will be used to regulate the content of the Internet, when we are checking our e-mails, when we open our Friendster or Facebook accounts, when we are checking our websites. Does this mean that we will be compelled to moderate, modify or edit our personal websites? Is this not Internet censorship and suppression of freedom of speech and expression?” Palatino said.

“Does this mean that whenever a criticism is published in these venues a person can use the Right of Reply to compel a blogger or moderator of a social networking site to publish a space or a reply for that person? Or when an individual decides to copy or repost an article from a news website in his or her personal blog, and in the future the said article becomes a subject of this Right of Reply, will he or she be sanctioned or fined also?” he said.

In reply, Abante said the bill would be defined more clearly through its implementing rules and regulations (IRR).

“Primarily, this bill refers to media publications and practitioners. I would think it will be defined more on the IRR,” he said.

But Palatino said that Congress should just remove the line “any electronic device” in the bill’s first section. The bill is still up for amendments in the House.

“Again, this would affect more than 60 million mobile phone users and iPod owners in the country,” Palatino said.

Palatino said he would oppose the right of reply bill on the grounds that it violates the freedom of the press and the public’s freedom of speech and expression. He also said he was not amenable even to a “watered down” version of the bill because it merely “renders the Right of Reply pointless.”

He also encouraged bloggers, netizens, texters and concerned youth to register their opposition to the “apparent railroading of the bill in Congress.”