Respect rights in ‘fake news’ fight, gov’t urged
- Growing concerns over the proliferation of fake news should not lead to the violation of constitutional rights in the monitoring of public remarks, protest actions and particularly online content.
- The Commission on Human Rights warned against prior restraint, or restrictions by the government on free speech and expression that essentially serve as censorship (prior to publication).
- Senate President Francis Escudero, also citing Section 4 of the Bill of Rights, said the NBI and other agencies must be impartial in prosecuting individuals engaged in disinformation.
Growing concerns over the proliferation of fake news after the March 11 arrest of former President Rodrigo Duterte have also prompted calls to ensure the protection of constitutional rights in the monitoring of public remarks, protest actions and particularly online content.
Both the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) and the leader of the Senate on Monday warned against prior restraint, or restrictions by the government on free speech and expression that essentially serve as censorship.
Responding to the reported arrest of an online content creator who allegedly posted fake content against President Marcos, the CHR reminded law enforcers to “remain circumspect in enforcing criminal laws that have a direct impact on the enjoyment of the freedom of expression by every individual.”
“While there are limitations to freedom of expression, government-based sanctions that look into the truth or falsity of a statement are a form of content-based restraint that may be considered a prior restraint on free speech prohibited by Article III, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution,” the commission said in a statement.
The said provision in the Bill of Rights (Article III of the Constitution) states 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.”
Arrest, inquiry
On March 20, the National Bureau of Investigation arrested 30-year-old content creator Wendelyn Magalso of Oslob, Cebu. According to the bureau, Magalso had attributed to Mr. Marcos a fake statement calling for the legalization of illegal drugs.
The arrest was hailed by some lawmakers, such as House Assistant Majority Leader Amparo Maria Zamora, who pointed out that “there are limits to being a ‘content creator,’ especially if you do it to slander, spread lies and profit from fraud.”
A content creator like Magalso is defined as someone who creates and produces entertaining or educational digital content, especially on social media channels, whereas a vlogger is a type of content creator who creates “vlogs” or video blogs that may focus on specific niches.
Other types of online and social media personalities are influencers, who utilize their online reach and appeal to influence people to take on specific actions via their social media accounts, and bloggers who create written content based on more niche communities or subjects.
Following Magalso’s arrest, a tripartite committee of the House of Representatives continued its inquiry into the dissemination of fake news, attended this time by online personalities it had earlier summoned.
Three of them were forced to apologize after admitting to making false or baseless claims.
But Manila Rep. Bienvenido Abante Jr., chair of the human rights panel in the committee, said on Monday that “These apologies… are not enough. If these vloggers are truly sincere, they must stop spreading lies and start presenting the truth —not their so-called ‘truth,’ but the real, honest-to-God truth.”
‘Surveillance, prosecution’
The CHR noted that “the online content creator was arrested on the basis of an arrest warrant for libel.”
“Further, there are ongoing surveillance efforts by law enforcement against online content creators or vloggers whom they suspect of spreading disinformation or fake news,” the agency said.
It then expressed “serious concerns [about] content-based restraint enforced on pain of criminal or penal prosecution, as [this] sends a chilling effect on other constitutionally protected forms of speech such as an individual’s freedom to express oneself, ethical journalism, and well-meaning political advocacy.”
To avoid the “overbearing application” of the “in terrorem effect” of criminal laws—or their undue deterrence on any action that may be otherwise in accordance with constitutional rights—the CHR said it would remain “vigilant in monitoring possible infringements on the fundamental right to freedom of expression.”
Weighing in on freedom of expression, Chief Presidential Legal Counsel Juan Ponce Enrile said earlier that his understanding of this right, as “guaranteed…in the Bill of Rights is that it is underpinned with truthful information, so that our unknowing people are made aware with events or happenings in our social community [and] can make the right decisions on matters that affect them, instead of being manipulated to serve the interest of others.”
“Social media practitioners in our country should not consider their newfound tool as a license to disseminate made up or invented information,” Enrile also said in a Facebook post on Sunday.
Expressing opinion
Senate President Francis Escudero, also citing Section 4 of the Bill of Rights, said the NBI and other agencies must be impartial in prosecuting individuals engaged in disinformation.
“The right of a person to speak is not unlimited. But we should not do something that may constitute what we call prior restraint, or those that may cause fear to prevent the people from expressing what’s in their heart and mind,” Escudero said in a press briefing on Monday.
He emphasized that authorities should distinguish “pervaders of fake news” from those merely sharing their opinions on various issues.
“[I] may not agree with what [you are] saying, but I will always defend your right to say it as long as it is your opinion and you’re not passing it off as the truth about a thing, person or event,” Escudero also said, paraphrasing a classic quote often attributed to the French writer Voltaire.
Regarding NBI Director Jaime Santiago, the Senate leader said, “What he is doing now on the law enforcement side should not and should never cross the line and constitute prior restraint.”
Free speech, sedition, libel
But he expressed confidence that Santiago, a retired Manila trial court judge, understands the concept of prior restraint.
Asked about freedom of expression, Santiago told reporters on Monday: “As a former judge, I make sure to weigh things properly. I understand and respect freedom of speech and freedom of expression, which is why I acknowledge that their comments reflect their own beliefs.”
“But once they cross the line and [resort to] inciting to sedition or [commit] libel, we need to put a stop to it,” he said.
Santiago also said his agency was looking into possible “backers” behind vloggers promoting fake news.
“We are thoroughly investigating why this is the recurring theme among vloggers today. Is someone leading them? We are looking into all of this,” he said. —WITH REPORTS FROM JEANNETTE I. ANDRADE AND INQUIRER RESEARCH
