"Maria Ressa, head of Philippines news site Rappler, freed on bail"
Summary:
Philippine journalist Maria Ressa was arrested by the Philippine government for "cyber libel," which could lead to her receiving 12 years in prison. Ressa is the head of the online news site Rappler and has been recognized by the Times Magazine Person in 2018 for having the power to report in an "increasingly hostile environment." According to the article, Rappler is known for being one of the few news sites that openly criticizes President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines. The site has been increasingly gaining attention ever since they published reports about Duterte's war on drugs and how the way the president has targeted the poor could lead him to be punished for crimes against humanity. Despite this, Ressa claims that the Rappler is not ant-Duterte and is just performing its job of informing the public.
According to the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines this arrest is "clearly manipulated charge of cyber libel is a shameless act of persecution by a bully government.” They also claim that this is an example of the Philippine government attempting to silence the media in favor of themselves. The Philippines has a reputation for having a lack of freedom of the press, with them scoring 133rd place out of 180 on the rankings of press freedoms by Reporters Without Borders. Other media sites that President Dueterte has been focusing on are the Philippine Daily Inquirer newspaper and broadcaster ABS-CBN.
presidential spokesperson Salvador Panelo claims that Ressa's arrest has nothing to do with freedom of expression
President Durerte denies that Ressa's charges were motivated by politics, but rather because it was a "fake news outlet," which caused the state to revoke Rappler's license. Furthermore the government states that the reason for Durerte's arrest is the site's failure to pay taxes on 2015 bond sales that they claim to amount to $3 million as well as a private citizen's complaint of libel for an article from 2012 rather than from the government. The government states that they do not pursue journalists who critique the government. On the other hand, according to BBC, journalists in the country actually do experience threats from Durerte's supporters.
Reaction:
As someone who writes for the school newspaper myself, I find it very disappointing that there are journalists out there who are not allowed or feel threatened to express their ideas and thoughts. Preventing and censoring new ideas will repress change and evolution of a society which could be detrimental for a society in the long run. Being able to express your thoughts and opinions should be normal and people should feel safe to express their opinions. On the other hand, I could understand in a different context why a government would want to suppress certain topics in the media or press.
Connection:
The repression of the press reflects the climate of many totalitarian countries that we studied last semester that prevented people from expressing their beliefs. For example, we studied how the Soviet Union censored the press to benefit their one party rule. This also reflects the Red Guards which would report those with non-Soviet beliefs or mindsets to the government for them to be punished by death or sent to the gulags. Furthermore, we also learned about how in Nazi Germany the government pushed propaganda to gain support for their party and censored the media that conflicts with party ideas or practices, which is similar to the Philippine government's use of the censorship of the media and press.
Questions:
1. Is it a government's job to restrict certain ideas from reaching the public?
2. Would you continue to publish your ideas to the public even though you were at risk of being arrested or threatened?
3. How should a charge of libel (a published false statement that damages someone's reputation) be distinguished and differentiated from lack of freedom of expression?
Even at risk of being detained or arrested, I would continue to publish any ideas that I felt were being threatened by the government. Maria Ressa, a woman who has worked tirelessly in the journalism industry, is being endangered by the Philippines government for her co-founded news outlet: Rappler. The case was reopened from seven years ago after it had been dismissed for not being within the one year limit for bringing libel cases. Because of the limit being enforced then ignored seven years later, I highly doubt president Duterte and the person charging Ressa had any motive besides a political advantage over the news outlet. I think that despite being threatened, it is virtuous that Ressa stood up for her beliefs, because it allows the government to see that her faiths will not collapse from detainment.
ReplyDeleteLibel is not covered under freedom of expression. You cannot accuse people of incriminating things that damage people reputations and call it freedom of speech. Libel cases often win a lot of money when pursued because that's how damaging these statements can be to a persons ability to make money. However in this case this libel case is clearly just a way for duarte to arrest this journalist. What surprises me is why their is not enough media buzz about this in the US. IF you check the news feeds on CNN and Fox the news story is not one of the main stories featured in their news feed even though its a pretty recent event. When rights of journalist our abused I believe their should be more condemnation of Duarte.
ReplyDeleteI would like to believe that even in the face of being detained or arrested, I would continue to speak up. Facing oppression, it is much easier to follow someone into danger rather than lead, and very few are brave enough to do so. Maria Ressa is one of these people. She is unafraid to tell the public the truth and show them the side that the government is trying to hide, the side that says people deserve their rights and should not be oppressed. It is certainly difficult to lead a movement of change, which is why those who have are revered and well known; Martin Luther King Jr, Gandhi and others. Maria Ressa will be known as a fearless reporter who was unafraid to take every chance to speak her truth and spread it, shouting it to the people. To do so requires immense courage and bravery. I would love to think that I would be someone to do the same, but human nature is flawed. And in the face of losing my job or even my life, I am unsure if I would stand up to continue fighting. It is very easy to say so, but to really do it is an entirely other story. I like to think I would put other people before me, think of how many lives I could help and change, and that would help me make the decision I need to pull through and stand strong.
ReplyDeleteThe government’s right on restricting certain media/ideas from reaching the public should depend on the situation. If it were a national secret being leaked out, the government should have the right to censor any sort of media that exposes this national secret. However, in this case, the government has censored Rappler, an online news site in the Philippines with a reputation for its investigative journalism, because it has published “cyber-libel” against President Duterte. The Rappler has published articles that have been especially critical of President Duterte such as the Duterte’s war on drugs and a sexual assault allegation, all of which may have led to the decision to arrest Maria Ressa, the CEO of Rappler. The government’s actions aren’t necessarily justified due to the overwhelming political advantage the President has over Maria Ressa. I agree with Zion on how one cannot accuse people of incriminating things that damage people reputations and call it freedom of speech. Libel is not covered under freedom of expression and the government should be able to censor such behavior. However, in this case, Duterte abused his power to arrest a journalist for defaming/exposing his actions. (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-42713897)
ReplyDelete(https://news.abs-cbn.com/news/02/14/19/duterte-washes-hands-of-ressa-arrest) In all cases of libel, one must first distinguish the truth of their comment. If the libel isn’t justified and the statement can be clearly deemed as the truth, the government should not be able to detain or arrest the speakers.
In response to the questions, I believe that the government has no right to restrict any type of ideas from reaching the public. I believe that every person has a right to know what is going on this world, and it is not up to someone else to get to decide what information is being told. For me personally, if I lived in a society where speaking my mind could get me detained or punished, while I would love to have the courage, like Maria Ressa, I wouldn't do it. This is because I would be to scared to walk out of my house everyday, knowing that there is someone out there who might want to hurt me. I also wouldn't want to do that to my family. If I have kids in the future, and got arrested, that would be horrible for them to have to cope with. Although that is how I feel, I respect anyone who has ever publicly spoken their mind on a potentially dangerous subject. Who I don't respect, though, is anyone who has ever written or advocated a false statement about someone, or in other words, a libel. Any information put out into this world can have drastic effects, so any person that publicly shames or critiques someone for things that didn't actually happen, should definitely be punished.
ReplyDeleteThis idea of silencing media because they pose a threat is not good for the government because in terms like this the backlash puts more pressure on the government exposing them for trying to silence the media. You can not accuse someone of something without rightful probable cause and to focus on a major CEO of a online new company was not a smart play. The War on drugs was not that big of a deal to the point where they should have tried to shut her down/put her in jail.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the article and finding out the conduct of the officers from the National Bureau of Investigations it is clear that the Philippine government is in the wrong. Clearly, one of the officers threatening a reporter by saying they would be "next" is not acceptable. In response to your questions, I believe that it is a government's job to restrict certain ideas. That is why we have exceptions to the First Amendment. Examples like, threats, libel and slander, violation of copyright laws, crimes involving speech (perjury, extortion, and harassment), and fighting words are all examples of freedom of speech that the government chooses to regulate (https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/what-type-of-speech-is-not-protected-by-the-first-amendment-34258). And I agree that these ideas should be regulated, because they all have a negative impact on our society that isn't lawful and therefore these types of speech and ideas shouldn't be allowed. On the other hand, I respect any reporter that still publishes even after being threatened or even arrested. It is important to stand up for your beliefs and values even if others don't want you to. Just like Maria Ressa, a good reporter does not back down when they are threatened, because they know the importance of holding people accountable. Finally, once again I turn to US laws to seek guidance for how one should differentiate a charge of libel from freedom of expression. In California 4 things must be proven to establish defamation. They are: "That someone made a false statement of purported “fact” about you:
ReplyDeleteThat the statement was made (“published”) to a third party;
That the person who made the statement did so negligently, recklessly or intentionally; and,
That as a result of the statement, your reputation was damaged." (https://www.shouselaw.com/personal-injury/defamation.html). I believe if these conditions are met then it is defamation and not freedom of expression. If the statement does not meet these conditions then I believe it to be freedom of expression.
The government definitely retains a right to censorship to the extent of security and protecting people. However, this is far from the case in this scenario. Targeting the head of a defiant news source is a statement, a threat to ward off future critics. This is a clear abuse of power, and removes an informative source from the public while discouraging others from elaborating in their own journalism. Reporting the truth is crucial, especially when injustice is occuring, and to bully journalists out of spreading the truth is harmful to every party in the long run.
ReplyDeleteI believe that is is not a government’s job to restrict certain ideas from reaching the public. If the public is unable to see all sides of a topic or idea their opinion on it will become biased. The public should be able to choose what they want to decide about a topic and should not be restricted by anything, especially the government. If I was in the same situation as Ressa, I think that I would continue to publish my ideas even if it puts myself at risk. I believe that no one should be censored from things that may criticize something. Even if you do not think it is good, it is not dependent on you to choose how someone should think about a topic. I think that a charge of libel should be differentiated from lack of freedom due to facts. If you cannot give any evidence to what you are accusing, it would be libel. But if you do have evidence being arrested for apparently creating a libel, that is lack of freedom of expression. If you are criticizing someone due to your opinion, it should be stated within the article, but I think that as long as you have another source to help strengthen your point, it should not be accused of libel.
ReplyDeleteLike many of the comments above, I believe that it was brave of Maria Ressa to stand up and speak out on what she believed in. It is hard to face challenges and adversity when one could be arrested or publicly taken down. For normal residents and citizens of the world, journalists like Ressa are necessary in a place that is full of lies and corruption, to tell the truth. I believe the Filipino government, and frankly many other countriés government, tries to impede the truth to spread out to their citizens.Of course, the government does need to have the ability to censor articles and pieces of information that can cause harm to a population. There is a fine line between these two ideas and journalists do need to be careful of what information they put in the article. However, Maria Ressaś case is different from this, rather harming the government and President than the people. I personally hope that I could be brave like Ressa and doing what is right, but I am unsure that I would risk my life and career on it.
ReplyDeleteSimilarly, I am also hesitant if I would risk my career by publishing my opinion due to fear. I also agree that when it comes to national security, such as a national secret being leaked, then a government has the right to censor the press or media.
DeleteFurthermore, the Philippines does not have specific regulations that would prevent a journalist from publishing their opinion. The can allow for fake news to grow and proliferate though. I feel that improvement of proper regulations could help with this problem and stop people from abusing their power to repress the press.
Accordingly to the Committee to Protect Journalists (an American nonprofit that fights for the rights of journalists), the Philippines had the most journalists killed during a year. About 80 journalists were murdered from 1992 to 2018. The lack of regulations on in the field could be causing so many journalists to be targeted.
sources:
https://cpj.org/data/killed/asia/philippines/?status=Killed&motiveConfirmed%5B%5D=Confirmed&type%5B%5D=Journalist&cc_fips%5B%5D=RP&start_year=1992&end_year=2018&group_by=location
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-a-new-weapon-against-press-freedom-in-the-philippines/
I do not think that it is the governmentś job to restrict ideas being shared in the public. This is an overreach of their boundaries. By trying to erase certain ideas amongst citizens, a government is then handicapping their citizens (in terms of the citizens' right to their own opinion). It is not the government's´ job to make sure all the civilians are in support of it. It is its job to protect their rights. However, by suppressing oneś freedom of speech and press, the government really then is doing the exact opposite of what they are supposed to be doing, for it is every persons' natural right to have their own unique opinions and not be punished for them. One cannot be arrested for libel if the facts mentioned in reporting are true and the story or statement is of public interest. If what was said about the President was true in Ressaś case, than she shouldn't have been arrested for libel. This false accusation of libel is indeed the governmentś infringement on the peopleś rights. Therefore, the government should not be restricting such ideas from being spread to the public.
ReplyDeleteThe philippines are a country already inching towards more and more censorship. According to
ReplyDeletehttps://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/01/proposed-constitutional-amendment-poses-grave-threat-free-expression-philippines , the Constitution of the Philippines guarantees press freedom, evidently going against what the government’s decisions regarding Maria Ressa. However, the Philippines rank fifth in the world for exemption of punishment for killing journalists. In the philippines, libel threats are common, but nonetheless shouldn’t be. Freedom of speech seems like a basic right for people in the US, and it’s hard to imagine having to censor opinions in a society where we are so encouraged to voice our thoughts. Duterte going after the Rappler for openly criticizing the government doesn’t make him look any better than the openly expressed opinions on the Rappler. Overall, the government’s act should not have been justified, for freedom of press is a liberty out of the Philippine constitution, and should therefore apply for all citizens, even if they openly report against the president online.
I don’t see how the government in any way could claim any responsibility for what is or isn’t allowed to reach their people in terms of media. How could a government prove they aren’t manipulating and controlling their people if they are limiting what their people are allowed to see and know? Why should certain pieces of information matter to the government at all, unless there is something they are trying to cover up and hide something. I believe the real problem comes when information is revealed that is fake. In Maria Ressa’s situation, the government is claiming that her statements are false and damaging, and if this is true then there must be some type of punishment for Ressa, as she would be biasedly harming the reputation of others without reason to do so. However, the Philippine government they have no reasoning to arrest, as the information she is providing has no been proven false. She has not been truly proven guilty. The mass power that the Philippine government has, in comparison to one reporter, allows for corruption to occur, as the government can use their power to incriminate those who are a threat to them. I think Ressa’s situation is just another reminder of the ongoing struggle of keeping the strong and powerful in check, and not allowing someone’s money or intimidation to allow them to break the rules.
ReplyDeleteI agree with many others that it is unethical for a government to restrict expression of the press to this extent. This is because the government is essentially silencing all of its opponents and brainwashing everybody to obey them. Each individual should have their right to freely express their likings and dislikings. The government should be learning from these opinions because they can rule with general agreement and maintain power without being corrupt. This idea of silencing media has always been used for totalitarian governments, and it is very disappointing to see how the method is still violently used even today. According to a BBC article on this topic (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-47225217), “Since 1986, 176 journalists have been killed in the country, making it one of the most dangerous in the world for reporters.” This cruelty just emphasizes how the Philippine government is physically silencing the press in such brutal ways. This huge fear that Philippine journalists have to face just to express their thoughts to the media also proves the government’s corruption. Because of this, I believe that it is very unfair to arrest Maria Ressa because she is very unafraid and determined in publishing her “banned” opinions while it should already allowed in the first place.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that it is the government's job to restrict the spread of their citizen's ideas. I agree with the above comments on the fact that the governments wish to silence people who speak against them, is a brainwashing of the people. If people do not have a right to speak out about the changes they wish to see in their government, and the problems that exist there, they will eventually grow angry enough to cause real problems for people in power. The repression of people, such as Maria Ressa will only fan their anger at their society and bring more attention to their causes. The idea of a government suppressing their people is one we have seen before while studying in this class. The propaganda to bring support to the war effort during WWI and II is another example of government's preventing the spread of/ twisting information to restrict the beliefs of their people. If a political system does not allow for the free and honest spread of information, it will result in the unease of their citizens, and potentially lead to their downfall.
ReplyDeleteReading this article reminded me a lot of the article I read the first week about the Chinese censoring the media. In response to your first question, I believe that no government should be able to censor certain ideas via the internet and/or media. Philippine citizens, or better yet, news reporters should not be restricted of freedom of speech, for it is a basic human right. Personally, if I were in Ressa’s position, I would continue to publish my ideas despite the risks. Mail and Guardian states, “Ressa insists the site is not anti-Duterte, saying it is just doing its job to hold the government to account.” It is literally her job to voice her opinion, and without exposure to different opinions, citizens could end up being brainwashed.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that it is a government’s job to restrict certain ideas from reaching the public. A government attempting to restrict ideas may feel that their ideologies are being threatened by the ideas they are restricting therefore they are trying to keep/enforce certain ideas created by the government by eliminating all the others. It is also an act of restricting our right to choose (to choose what we want to believe, what we want to live by, etc. ) and if a government were to restrict ideas simply because those ideas do not work in their favor, they would be manipulating their citizens into conformity. Rather than restricting ideas, I think it is more important for the government to educate the public to distinguish harmful ideas from just general ideas.
ReplyDeleteI feel that it is not right or just for a government to restrict the public from viewing certain idea. The people are entitled to express how they feel and should be able to project those feelings if they wish to do so. While I do believe that governments have a right to block some media in emergency situations regarding government secrets or anything confidential that could result in the harm of the people, blocking ideas solely because you disagree with them is wrong and unjust. If my life was in danger I would definitely try to continue to publish my ideas to stand up for what I feel is right and to not let myself be muted. I would try to go into hiding or try to leave the country while continuing my fight for justice in my home country. I would try to do what Malala did after she was shot in the head by the Taliban on her way to school. She spoke up for woman's rights and woman's education and as she received threats on her life, she moved out of the country and continued to advocate for the the rights that woman deserve. Injustice in a country will continue to go on without disruption if no one stands up and tries to change anything. That is why it is so important to not just let the government walk over the people in a situation like that, but rather to try and change what is going on by facing it head on.
ReplyDelete