I was doing my usual Sunday reading while drinking my favorite Lipa Buko Juice when I almost spewed out the drink after reading one of the articles. In page A7 of the May 31, 2009 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer, Kabataan Party-list Representative Mong Palatino revealed that the infamous Right of Reply Bill (No. 3306), covers websites, e-mails, internet social networking sites, and for some stupid reason – all electronic devices. So what does this mean for us bloggers and website owners? If this bill becomes law, then we are legally bound to re-publish the reply of any individual or group that we’ve written about in our blogs. Actual text of the bill for your scrutiny after the break.
Here’s a direct quote from the article on Inquirer:
Palatino noted that Section 1 of HB 3306 (Right of Reply) 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.”
Here are some possible (but very unlikely and stupid) scenarios that can be brought about by this bill.
SMS/Texting: Yay, a phone is an electronic device so this is under the jurisdiction of the bill. You make “chismis” about someone and send it to your friends. Your “chismis target” finds out and files a case against you using the Right of Reply. Does this mean you have to text everyone that you texted about the chismis with the reply of your “chismis target”?
Social Networks: Be careful when you make notes or status updates on your Facebook account. If, by any chance, you “malign” someone and he uses this bill as reference, you will have to publicly publish his reply, whatever it maybe, on your Facebook account as well.
Blogging (especially commentary and personal blogs): Let’s use Hayden Kho as an example. I know that thousands of Filipino bloggers talked about Hayden Kho in a negative way because of his recent Sex Scandal. What if (just for the sake of discussion), Hayden Kho cites the Right of Reply Bill and lists down all the bloggers as respondents? Does this mean that all the bloggers will be forced to publish his reply in it’s entirety in their blogs?
The text above is very dangerous, especially if it becomes law. However, the good thing is that the bill is still being studied and is not yet in it’s final form.
The sponsor of the bill, Manila Rep. Bienvenido Abante, explains in the same article that the bill “primarily refers to media publications and practitioners.” He also stresses that the bill will be more specific when they work on the implementing rules and regulations (IRR). Let’s pray that the good congressman means what he said. With all the fuss going around with Hayden Kho and Swine Flu, this bill might get passed without anyone noticing.
When will Filipino legislators learn that digital media and analog media are two fundamentally different animals? The physical barriers and inequities of analog media restrict the ability to reply. Those barriers do not exist in digital media. You can’t always put up your own newspaper, but you can always put up your own blog.
@Mike: This just got to show how enormous the generational gap is between the people running this country and today’s youth. Lol.
And when will these intelligent legislators understand that there are still bigger issues that needs resolution? Let the generation today enjoy digital media’s democracy. Instead of putting control, these people should at least think about empowering them.
Why do they love complicating things?
That does sound very punishing to us Filipinos, our country will just live on law suits if it gets passed lol.
Hi Carlo,
Good examples. But what if it were you who is the subject of the topic?
When Reyna Elena attacked you in her blog, don’t you want the Right of Reply so your side will be heard on the same blog that maligned you? Don’t you think that’s fair for you?
This law is useless..They made this law for there own good not for everybody…What a bullsh*t law..
I am in favor of a right to reply bill myself, but more in the sense that people who are maligned without stated proof should have the right to reply to allegations. My sense is, it should be the court who will decide where there is cause for a right to reply application, and the criteria for whether the right to reply is awarded is whether the original material included proof or evidence that is factual or true under normal conditions.
To my mind, this will stop the rumor -mongering and will force lazy journalists to do their jobs properly, which is research articles well, and gather evidence, not just depend on invented quotes and publish suppositions based on their own analysis that in itself is again not based on facts. I am sure everyone agrees that for many of our broadcasters (particularly radio and television), most of them will just shoot off statements without understanding the need to be clear, true and factual about it.
am in favor of a right to reply bill myself, but more in the sense that people who are maligned without stated proof should have the right to reply to allegations. My sense is, it should be the court who will decide where there is cause for a right to reply application, and the criteria for whether the right to reply is awarded is whether the original material included proof or evidence that is factual or true under normal conditions.
To my mind, this will stop the rumor -mongering and will force lazy journalists to do their jobs properly, which is research articles well, and gather evidence, not just depend on invented quotes and publish suppositions based on their own analysis that in itself is again not based on facts. I am sure everyone agrees that for many of our broadcasters (particularly radio and television), most of them will just shoot off statements without understanding the need to be clear, true and factual about it.