Editorial

An attack on press freedom

THE biggest threat to press freedom in recent memory is the so-called right-to-reply bill that Congress is threatening to pass.

The Senate version of the bill, pushed by Senator Aquilino Pimentel, has already been passed. The House version, by Bacolod Rep. Monico Puentevella, is essentially the same bill?and scheduled for debates. For the sake of a free press, it must be defeated.

Both bills say that persons accused directly or indirectly of any crime or offense or are criticized by innuendo, suggestion or rumor for any lapse in behavior in public or private life shall have the right to reply to the charges published in newspapers and other publications or to criticisms aired over radio, television, Web site or through any electrical device. The bills also stipulate that publishers, media outlets and even Web sites must give time or space equal to the original attack.

While on the surface this may sound equitable and even reasonable, it is in fact a dangerous attack on press freedom because it dictates to newspapers, broadcast networks, journalists?and even individual bloggers?what they must publish, and how they must do it, under threat of steep fines and imprisonment. This violates the very fabric upon which our democracy is woven.

In a democracy, people elected or appointed to government office are answerable to the people and are therefore open to public scrutiny?and criticism?of their performance. This is a vital component of a working democracy and weakening this aspect weakens democracy itself. If newspapers, for instance, were required by law to give ?equal space? to all lawmakers that they criticize as part of their role as watchdogs of government, there would be no more room for any other content on their news pages.

As a matter of course, all responsible journalists recognize the right of those criticized to reply, but we observe this right voluntarily because our profession demands it. Legislating this right, however, strips away the right of journalists to decide how and when to present such replies.

The right-to-reply bill is both unnecessary and intrusive.

It is redundant because all responsible news organizations already respect the right of individuals who are criticized to air their side. Also, in this age of Internet publishing, anyone can go online and publish his point of view. When supporters of the bill quip that free speech belongs not only to newspapers, they conveniently forget this aspect of modern life. Nobody needs to legislate this right.

But the biggest argument against the bill is that it is unconstitutional.

The right-to-reply bill must be struck down because it violates Section 4 of the Bill of Rights in our Constitution. Lawmakers who support the bill should be reminded what that section says: ?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.?