By Dennis Gorecho
As the world is increasingly becoming interconnected, the fabric of society through the social media space must guarantee a balance in fulfilling human rights.
Information is power, and in the digital age, we have unprecedented access to the knowledge we need to hold governments accountable and make our voices heard. With the ability to readily access and share information, we can challenge those in power and air our grievances like never before.
Freedom of speech is the right to articulate opinions and ideas without interference, retaliation or punishment from the government. The term “speech” is interpreted broadly and includes spoken and written words as well as symbolic speech.
The Constitution guarantees freedom of expression, of speech and of the press under Article III, Section 4: “No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.”
In the hierarchy of civil liberties, the rights of free expression and of assembly occupy a preferred position as they are essential to the preservation and vitality of our civil and political institutions; and such priority “gives these liberties the sanctity and the sanction not permitting dubious intrusions.” (Phil. Blooming Mills Employees Org. vs. Phil. Blooming Mills Co. Inc., 151-A Phil. 656)
Freedom of expression is critical and indispensable in a democracy. To ensure a meaningful and deliberative democracy, there must be an uninhibited discourse on public issues. (The Diocese of Bacolod vs. Comelec, 751 Phil. 310)
Social media has democratized information sharing, allowing individuals to bypass traditional media gatekeepers and express their opinion directly to a wide audience.
Some people, however, misinterpret this to mean that they have the freedom to say whatever they want to others, regardless of whether their words cause distress or harm to other people.
Freedom of speech and expression, a cornerstone of democratic society, is fiercely protected, yet it is not without its limits.
The realities of life in a complex society require a degree of moderation and certain limitations exist to balance the need for public order, morality and national security.
Some of these acts or limitations include defamation (libel and slander), obscenity, hate speech, threats and harassment, incitement to violence, and national security, among others.
Defamation: Encompasses libel (written) and slander (spoken) that involves maliciously communicating false information that harms another person’s reputation.
Libel: A criminal offense defined as a public and malicious imputation of a crime, vice or defect that tends to cause dishonor, discredit or contempt of a person, or to blacken the memory of the dead.
Misinformation: False, inaccurate or misleading information claiming the aesthetics and legitimacy of news popularly known as “fake news.”
Obscenity: The work depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, if taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
Incitement to violence: There is an intentional and direct use of wording to incite violence or people to break the law, and where there is a real possibility that the violence occurs.
Hate speech: A form of verbal, written or behavioral communication that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language against a person or group because of their religious background, ethnicity, nationality, race, skin color, descent, gender, or other identity factors.
Threats or harassments: The speaker communicates a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals with the intent of placing the victim in fear of bodily harm or death.
National security: Speech deemed to pose a threat to national security that includes the use or threat of force against the country’s very existence or its territorial integrity. The threat can be external or internal.
Public order: Speech that incites riots or disrupts public order.
In Atty. Rico Domingo vs. Loraine Badoy (GR 263384, August 15, 2023), the Supreme Court said that “people wade through a constant stream of information, with a great number absorbing without question what they come across when it is aligned with prior views. Dubious and unverified statements are placed on the same footing — if not more — as credible and substantiated information.”
“The abuse of the privilege consists principally in not telling the truth. There is a right to publish the truth, but no right to publish falsehood to the injury of others with impunity.” (People vs. Godoy, 312 Phil. 977)
For freedom of expression is not an absolute, nor is it an “unbridled license that gives immunity for every possible use of language and prevents the punishment of those who abuse this freedom.” (Chavez vs. Gonzales, 569 Phil. 155)
***
Atty. Dennis R. Gorecho is the Junior Partner of the Sapalo Velez Bundang Bulilan Law Offices. For comments, e-mail info@sapalovelez.com, or call 09088665786./WDJ