Replying to rights of reply

Yesterday happened to be summer accreditation (or re-accreditation) for the Ateneo Debate Society, and although we finished late (I went home around midnight) and I didn't get in (which means I have to wait another three months for regular tryouts), it proved to be a very pleasant, if not culturally shocking, experience. Congratulations though to my friend Ray Pine for getting in (I know you would), and I hope that in thanking Patrick Cocabo for bringing me to Ortigas and getting a taxi for me, he will realize that I accidentally left my umbrella in the back of his car.

Of course, that presumes the people concerned are reading.

I can attest though that it has been three months since I last debated at that event, whether in training or in a competition. My mind still feels very off, sort of on summer mode, so I think the inherent laziness that defines summer has melted my debate brain somewhat. Hopefully I can get into better shape by August.

Anyway, onto more pressing issues, a.k.a. the one that deserves the attention of the unusually-crafted title.

As I was reading the Philippine Daily Inquirer, I ran into two articles that actually caught my attention. The first was an Inquirer blog entry on a blog urging people to give Hayden Kho a chance. In summary form, what both entries (at the Inquirer and the "Give Hayden a Chance" blog) try to convey is that the issue has been blown out of proportion, and that we should be focusing on more pressing issues. The doctor has already confessed, so we shouldn't berate him any further. If I were to take this into context, it would mean two things:

1. First, Katrina Halili should at least be considerate of what she has done. If it was revenge she wanted, the media field day being thrown at Hayden is enough revenge to warrant her redemption (if there was any)
2. Second, everyone, especially the Senate, should press towards more important issues. The Senate is notorious for inquiries in aid of legislation which easily flame in ningas cogon fashion: we produce a lot of rhetoric (pronunciation lesson: it's pronounced "RE-torik", not "re-TO-rik") but no tangible legislation as a result of that rhetoric.

Basically, there are two questions that come into light. The first one is whether or not other victims will be more emboldened to tell the tales of their videotaped sexual trysts to authorities the same way Katrina Halili has. In exploring the situation, Katrina Halili didn't even use the normal methods of reporting such a crime (the police, duh!). Instead, she ran to the closest authority she knew: Senator Bong Revilla. I don't think the average Filipino who was victimized by a sex scandal would even have the connections to run to such a person of "high" moral stature, let alone have his/her story be told by a senator in a privilege speech. If she wanted to be an example for the legions of other Filipinos out there, she should have ran to the authorities the way a normal Filipino would have.

As to whether or not Hayden Kho should be given a second chance (the second question), I really think he should.

The second article that I ran into on the Inquirer is about how the controversial right-of-reply bill (which for some reason can't be downloaded from the website of the Congress) also covers bloggers and texters. Apparently, Rep. Bienvenido Abante (sponsor of the bill) has revealed that even blogs and (gasp!) e-mail correspondence will be covered by the bill when passed into law. Inasmuch as I want to burn a copy of the bill and throw its ashes into a never-ending abyss, as long as I have no copy of the bill, don't expect it anytime soon.

The Filipino netizenry is an example of how vibrant our free-speech culture is. It gives us room to express ourselves and gives us the leeway to (quoting my blog's tagline) try to make sense of the world. However, should politicians who feel that their egos were injured due to a slight on the part of an indiscriminate blogger be immediately given the liberty (at their demand) to respond? I certainly hope that right of reply won't be misconstrued as "subdued libel" anytime soon.

Likewise, it would be very unreasonable for politicians to keep an iron grip on sixty million mobile phone users, five million bloggers and millions of traded e-mails. If and when it becomes technologically feasible to cover that many people, we would be lightyears ahead.

I hope we can find sense against the muzzling of free speech. Opposing this ridiculous bill (where in blog parlance you are given the right to reply anyway through the handy, dandy comment feature) certainly makes a lot of sense.