Limits

 Article III, Section 4 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution which provides that: “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” is almost a word for word replica of the pertinent portion of the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution.

Question: What is the only word in the Philippine version which is not found in its original US counterpart?

Answer: the word “expression.”

Indubitably, this Philippine amendment improves the 200 plus year old text (parenthetically, the latter is continuing proof of the American founding fathers’ collective genius). “Speech” and “press” are limited to the written and spoken word while “expression” is more encompassing, covering non verbal and symbolic acts. Query however why “expression” follows the word “speech” when the former is more generic than the latter. In fact, why not take away “speech” and “press” altogether although I am certain that the “originalists” will object to such a change.

*      *      *      *

French philosopher Voltaire once said that, “I may utterly detest what you write, but I shall fight to the death to defend your right to write it.” To me, this encapsulates the very essence of freedom of expression.

Indeed, what truly sets humans apart is our ability to formulate and voice our own opinions. Freedom to think is naturally bestowed by birth, but freedom to express one’s thoughts is a Constitutional right given to every citizen in a free society. But such right is not absolute and has its limits. There are certain types of expression which have been deemed to be legally unprotected because they provide little contribution to the cause of meaningful dialogue.

Freedom of expression was also designed to promote acceptance of other people’s beliefs. In a society where such is non-existent, people are constrained to conform, at least outwardly, to a single acceptable ideology. In western countries, the idea is to provide an open market for the free expression of thought and interplay of divergent ideas. By being exposed to the ideas of others, it is hoped that a greater tolerance for such perspectives will be obtained. Unfortunately, history has sometimes shown the opposite to be the case.

Voltaire’s phantom-words echo down the halls of history and are resurrected in light of current events. The 14-minute documentary “Innocence of Muslims” which sparked riots across the Middle East and North Africa and which led to the death of US Ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, may very well have given even Voltaire cause for pause. The YouTube accessible video projects an anti-Islamic montage of different clips telling a loosely coherent story about the rise of Islam. Different portions of the film question the foundation of Islam, and portray the Prophet Mohammed in a bad light. Since the film was uploaded last September 12, it has generated 10,812,592 views of which 32,352 are “likes” and 89,406 are “dislikes” as of this writing. Despite the raging controversy and the White House’s request for Google to “review” and potentially remove the film from their site, the latter has refused to do so. However, Google has chosen to restrict access to the video in countries such as India, Indonesia, Libya and Egypt.

This situation again tests two overlapping — and at times opposing — rights: freedom of expression and freedom of religion. While much has already been said elsewhere regarding these two important freedoms, suffice it to say that commensurate respect should be accorded to both and that the state should endeavour to strike a balance of benevolent accommodation so that these rights’ noble objectives are maintained and enhanced.

*      *      *      *

The other “free speech” case which lugged international headlines last week was Kate Middleton’s photos. One bold paparazzi caught the Duchess of Cambridge with Prince William on the balcony of a 19th century hunting lodge with their “shirts off” so to speak and “bare some” pics were snapped away using a long lens.

The couple, invoking their right to privacy, filed suit and managed to get a French court to issue an injunction and order Closer magazine to hand over digital files of the pictures within 24 hours. The photographer himself is still being sought for questioning as, under French criminal law, a breach of privacy carries a fine of euro36,000 and a jail sentence of up to 12 months.

Granted, the duchess and prince being public figures cannot be as onion-skinned as ordinary citizens, but certainly they are not without the right to a reasonable expectation of privacy, especially when they are in the premises of a private abode.

Indeed, strip the paparazzi of his camera and title and what do you get? A peeping tom. Constitutional freedoms were not designed to be used as a shield for social deviants to hide behind nor an impetus to bolden their convictions. No one has the right to pry on someone’s private moments, especially when it involves the intimate details of another’s life. Although the permitted demarcation line may be vague, one has probably crossed it if there is a need to hide behind the bushes using telescopic lenses just to obtain a few grainy photographs of public figures without their clothes on.

*      *      *      *

“Back Channelling” is the phrase of the week. A quick Wikipedia search describes it as synonymous to “Track II diplomacy which is a specific kind of informal diplomacy, in which non-officials engage in dialogue, with the aim to conflict resolution, or confidence-building. This sort of diplomacy is especially useful after events which can be interpreted in a number of different ways, both parties recognize this fact, and neither side wants to escalate or involve third parties for fear of the situation spiralling out of control. The informal nature of Track II diplomacy allows serious and potentially dangerous issues to be discussed in an open, non-official forum.”

*      *      *      *

Greetings: Birth anniversary best wishes to two physicians: Oklahoma-based brother, gastro-interologist/crooner Martin D. Bautista who joins the “Hawaii 5-0” club today and obstetrician/gynecologist Ellen Chotangco Acebo. Greetings as well to DILG lawyer Alvin Giolagon and to dependable Yna David who always makes sure that this column is submitted on time.

*      *      *      *

“Everything will be all right in the end. If it is not all right, then it is not yet the end.” - Indian proverb taken from “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel”

*      *      *      *

E-mail:[email protected]