EDITORIAL - Artistic license

Now that the EQ diaper advertisement controversy is over, perhaps it is time to ask the one burning question that never got to be asked while the controversy ran its course -- why was it that only very few took up the cudgels for EQ?

It cannot be denied that the EQ television commercial rubbed some people the wrong way. But it cannot be denied either that the commercial clearly had no serious intent to impair the historical significance of the Battle of Mactan.

But forget the dynamics of how the ad played out locally. What truly surprises is why EQ stood virtually alone in its travails when not too long ago, many vociferous souls came to the succor and aid of two individuals who did the unthinkable in the name of artistic license.

Remember that "artist" who did a most blasphemous and tasteless rendition of Jesus Christ ever? Well, while many wanted to lynch him for what he did, just as many came out ready to make sure that nobody did. His viable defense? Artistic license.

Then came that other guy, that tour guide, who again chose to cause scandal and mayhem among the religious sensibilities of others, disrupting a religious service in progress to put forth a political message.

Again the guy was roundly criticized, just as he was staunchly defended. Whichever you stood on these two issues, you must have met quite a formidable match in the marketplace of ideas.

If democracy is to work and be admirable at all, it is because dialogue often works. But in the EQ case, virtually nobody gave it even the benefit of the doubt. No wonder the Ad Board was rather swift is causing its recall.

This is not in defense of EQ as it is more than able to defend themselves. Besides, with the ad ordered pulled out, everything has become moot. But the wonderment will continue. And the selectivity in invoking artistic license can become haunting from now on.