The Right to Bitch, Bitching About Things, and Nonsensical Ramblings. Or Not. Heh.

It's been an interesting start-of-year, hasn't it, folks?

Quite a lot of flames have been fanned over the past few days, and while there are no indications that they'll get worse, I'm more or less convinced that it won't get any better. The headlines and top stories will continue to banner, well, more of the same, I think. There's very little that will true rouse the public into feeling a true sense of righteous indignation, let alone move the public to suiting actions to words.

In a way, I think it's a pity that the situation is so.

Thus, here's me offering yet another post on matters that could very well be of no consequence in the grand scheme of things.

(What can I say? I belong to the faceless sea of humanity, after all.)

And yes, my mood today is foul. Mostly because I'm working through a case of writer's block. Heh. So pardon the messy -- yet again -- post.

Or not. Whatever.

***
So the news has it that Bambee dela Paz has just been sued for libel. Well, why not? After all, the law is flexible enough to allow for such a possibility.

The erudite blawgger (law blogger, just so you know) The Warrior Lawyer has posted his take on the issue, and I've found it to be an engaging read. Of course, I'd nitpick that dela Paz is not the first blogger to have been sued for the contents of a post and will argue that the PCIJ blog owns that distinction (they were sued for libel by Jonathan Tiongco, if memory serves). I'm sure, however, that The Warrior Lawyer probably meant that the dela Paz suit is the first against a blogger who is a private individual and a non-journalist -- okay, that's a guess on my part that he meant that, but I think it's a fair guess.

Reading all those posts about libel vis-a-vis blog posts, I think that perhaps some folks have forgotten about one of the defenses against libel -- the right to reply. Here I'll talk a little about that.

See, one of the defenses of any publication is that they provide space for aggrieved parties to refute the contents of any story, via Letters to the Editor spaces or similar. Providing such a space ensures that news reports and opinion columns can and have been corrected and contradicted by ordinary people, involved or otherwise, about whatever has been published.

In so far as the blogosphere is concerned, it seems to me that the existence of the right to reply is inherent to the medium. There is no way that anyone can say that he has read something on the Internet and was denied his right to reply to that cyberspace-published something.

First, as far as blogs are concerned -- look to the bottom of almost any post, in almost any blog, and one will find a means to react. Yes, the comment thread below any post is in and of itself a manifestation that the right to reply exists on practically anything published in cyberspace. If one disagrees with something published, the one has the option -- or even, perhaps, the responsibility -- to leave a comment saying so.

Not leaving a comment expressing one's disapprovval or disagreement can and should be construed as a waiver of one's right to reply.

Second, in the broader view of cyberspace, anyone who is able to read a blog post, a forum thread, or a website online is likewise equipped with the capability to start his own blog, forum thread, or website refuting the contents the said person disagrees with. It is the height of idiocy to say that one can read a blog post and claim that he could not put up a reply online.

Not publishing a blog post contradicting that which has been published should also be construed as a waiver of one's right to reply.

It's of a nature analoguous to a radio station having aired a story once, and the same radio station, or even another station within the same broadcast range, airing a reply of the other party involved.

Of course, neither should the comment nor blog post contradicting the previously-published content be likewise libelous; else, I would suppose that doing so would weaken the stand of the person making the complaint. One also could then have opened himself to a counter suit. To use the previous analogy, someone complaining about Howard Stern should therefore refrain from using Howard Stern-ish language. Simple as that.

Furthermore, local jurisprudence and that of persuasive jurisdictions like the California Supreme Court have held that the reply must be of similar and judicious weight and nature; to continue to browbeat someone for more times than is necessary to have replied has been ruled to be harassment, carrying with it the ease in defending one's stand and making certain that the person or persons replying will end up being the ones ruled against; in quite a number of cases, even penalized severely.

To again use the radio station analogy, had the person complaining continue to air his complaints and comments incessantly and long after the airing of the content being complained, the person making such comments opens himself to the possibility of a harassment suit. The amount of evidence isn't even difficult to collect; when it is established that there have been multiple replies aired in response to a single airing, when the first reply is sufficient, gives ground for the complainer to be charged with harassment -- even more so, of course, when the replies and comments are no longer germane to the original issue.

Bottomline, therefore, is that I think that in the libel case involving the dela Paz blog, a defense that can be raised is that the Pangandamans waived their right to reply, by firstly, not making a reply comment refuting the blog post's contents in a timely manner, and second, by not putting up their own version of events online as soon as the issue went viral.

I believe that had the Pangandamans demonstrated that they had exercised their right to reply in a timely manner, their libel case would be strong and very difficult to assail. As it stands, the judge could very well say, "What took you so long to react?" and the libel case could be construed as merely a means of harassment.

We'll see. There are as yet no SCRA cases on online libel -- but from the looks of things this could change quickly.

***
Oh, and do read Ding's take. At the end of the day he points out that the whole deal could have been avoided if both parties played nice; also, he points out that not only are public officials held to a higher standard of behavior than the rest of us, public officials should live up to the standards that we hold them.

Lead by example, so to speak.

***
Recently, a number of bloggers and I were invited to meet with Senator Mar Roxas, in an informal meet-up to exchange views and ask the senator questions.

This wasn't my first time to speak with the senator for longer than ten seconds; after meeting with him that first time last year at Annabel's, then during the 2008 Philippine Blog Awards (where the senator recognized me -- I still find that fact amazing; maybe it was just the floppy hat? Haha!), then this third time. The senator, to my mind, has been consistent in the manner that he has presented himself; he has come across, at least to me, and to a certain degree, a persuasive man of no mean intellectual gifts.

However, having been in this informal session, I have developed further opinions as to the senator. Maybe some time I'll let you know what they are.

Anyway, back to the story -- it was an interesting evening. I got the impression that the senator was stretching his patience when Dean, in his characteristic fashion, leveled his intellectual guns; I must say, that despite the impatience that was barely hidden below the surface, the senator comported himself fairly well. Ding did a bit of probing, but he didn't really push the envelope as much as Dean had. Perhaps Noemi at that time was observing and forming an even clearer picture? I would think that her post on the matter would be persuasive.

Now to fast forward a little bit. Some time later and over Plurk, I opined to Caffeine Sparks that her rather biting criticism of the senator could very well have sparked (pun unintentional) not a few comments among Senator Mar Roxas's staff (but of course!).

(It's a fine, fine thing to take a strong stand when one does stand for something, I believe. On the other hand, Pat has his own take on Sparks' post; but let's leave that for later.)

The thing is, whether or not Sparks has valid points in her criticism of the senator (and I will not deny that she does), I cannot still go as far as saying as I will reject Senator Mar Roxas' presidential candidacy -- assuming, of course, he will run, which he has neither confirmed nor denied (something I can understand the rationale for, but not necessarily agreeing with). Here's how I see things (having told Sparks and Marocharim as much later than night): perhaps Roxas may not be the best person to become president, but he is the best available choice (or at least, the best available possible choice, as far as we know)... and therein lies the problem.

See, it is not as if there is a dearth of people qualified to lead -- the problem is that objective realities get in the way of getting to the helm. I do not doubt that there are probably better choices out there to become our Chief Executive, but I doubt if these better choices will be made available to us come 2010 (and assuming we have elections, of course). This is why, and I said as much to the senator, "unfortunately, you are the best choice thus far available."

Stress on the word "unfortunately." Then again, this is only because for the average reasonable Filipino the opportunities for political advancement are few and far between (it will be difficult to find an Obama-esque story locally), and that because we have limited choices we are forced to contrast the likes of Senator Roxas with, say, the likes of Bayani Fernando, Jejomar Binay, and the like.

No contest. Unfortunately.

That said, I am glad that the senator has extended such an invitation, and that I am fairly impressed with the way he navigated through the multiple Scylla/Charybdis questioning we bloggers threw his way that evening. He was a fairly good sport; the fact that he extended such an invitation, that he answered questions gamely (whether his answers were candid or not is an issue I will leave to others), and that he mentioned -- polite phrasing or not -- that he would enjoy another such sparring session gives me hope that there may be hope for the evolution of Philippine politics to something better than we have today. Heck, I'd like to see if the likes of potential presidentiables Chiz Escudero, Manny Villar, Ping Lacson, or whoever, would be likewise as game to fielding questions from ordinary folks.

Will I endorse Mar Roxas' possible candidacy at this point? I don't know yet; I have insufficient data to make such a judgment. I'd agree with Noemi that I'd love to pick the brains of other candidates, to be better equipped to make such a judgment.

Will I accept another invitation to discuss issues with Senator Roxas? Yes, of course -- contingent on time and circumstances, naturally. Having data available is better than not having it; next time, of course, I don't think we bloggers should cut him any slack (I said as much to the senator that night; I'm not sure if he was surprised that the bloggers did cut him slack that night, or if he was amused by it, but he seemed to be a good enough sport to welcome the challenge).

Will I accept a similar invitation to discuss issues with some other candidate? Naturally. Data gathering is data gathering. Heck, perhaps some hypothetical candidate will persuade me that he or she is a better choice than Senator Roxas is, who knows?

Let's see how this will play out.

(On another note -- how many bloggers out there get dating advice from a senator, eh, Marocharim? Nyaha.)

***
Let's stop here, folks. I'm sorry, but I'm just not in the mood to write tonight. Must be that nice full moon.

Later, all.



Want to keep The Journal of The Jester-in-Exile running? Why not leave some spare change?

back



Send an email to The Jester-in-Exile!