CommentaryIn defense of free expression
Not the first
The “Kulo” controversy is not the only instance of the state’s undermining free expression due to arbitrary, if popular, understanding of what is obscene, blasphemous, and immoral.
In 2001, then President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo ordered the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB) to recall the permit to show the film “Live Show” after a clamor from moralists and conservatives including the then archbishop of Manila, most of whom had not even seen the film to competently judge its worth.
In July 2006, the MTRCB suspended the airing of GMA-7’s i-Witness for its episode “Lukayo: Hindi Ito Bastos (Lukayo: This is Not Obscene)”, a documentary on a tradition in which elderly women in a Laguna town dance and play with phallic symbols during weddings. The MTRCB declared that it had to protect the viewing public from “obscene materials,” even if the “materials” had been around for practically ages, and were part of the culture of a Philippine community.
Some foreign movie companies have protested MTRCB’s cutting portions of films it had rated “X” because these were allegedly too violent, sexually explicit, or otherwise unfit for public viewing, despite the fact that doing so would mangle the films.
The suppression of the “Kulo” exhibit occurred in the context of a global campaign against religious defamation and blasphemy laws. International free expression groups like ARTICLE 19 and Freedom House have called for the repeal of religious libel and blasphemy laws, saying these are unnecessary and contrary to the right to free expression.
Paula Schriefer, Freedom House’s director of advocacy, argues that “Acts of religious discrimination are a genuine human rights issue for which everyone agrees a better solution is needed. However, not only do these laws fail to address the problem, but codifying ‘defamation of religions’ into international law also sets a dangerous precedent and provides legitimacy to the rights abuses these laws inevitably create.”
In her paper “Freedom of speech and offence: why blasphemy laws are not the appropriate response”, ARTICLE 19 executive director Agnes Callamard also argued that “There cannot be a human rights justification to the existence and implementation of blasphemy laws.”
Callamard also said: “In the United States, the Supreme Court steadfastly strikes down any legislation prohibiting blasphemy, on the fear that even well-meaning censors would be tempted to favor one religion over another, as well as because it ‘is not the business of government…to suppress real or imagined attacks upon a particular religious doctrine.”
‘Necessary’
International covenants and declarations—to which the Philippines is a signatory—echo Bernas’ point: they declare that restrictions on freedom of expression and opinion may only be applied when “necessary”.
But what does “necessary” mean? Mogens Schmidt of the UNESCO Communication and Information Sector wrote in a conference paper that “permissible restrictions in the Covenant (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights/ICCPR)…refer to a double condition: the limitations must be provided by law AND should be necessary to protect a number of public areas as well as the rights of others…‘necessary’ here means that there must be exceptional reasons for such restrictions.”
Schmidt quotes ICCPR’s Article 18: “Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.”
Reckless disregard
What happened to Kulo and Cruz was another example of the media’s often reckless disregard for the impact of its actions on the rest of society. But it is also a case of the state and its agencies’ favoring one religion over another on the argument that the majority belong to it.
The suppression of Kulo makes the degree of ‘offensiveness’ of any form of expression a justification for censorship, whereas the only acceptable standard is the harm free expression may inflict on society. And yet, it is the suppression of expression, rather than the ‘offensiveness’ of a play, a painting, or a film, that inflicts a greater harm on society because it denies citizens access to ideas, insights and perspectives on matters of concern which may help them better understand the various environments—whether social or natural—that otherwise resist comprehension.”
[…] Rocket Blogs Christian Tech- read more: CommentaryIn defense of free expression Destiny Image Films endeavors to tell inspirational stories that will touch and change lives. We […]
Hello sir,
Thanks for spending time writing this.
It surprised me that your commentary does not mention “responsibility” as a necessary twin to all freedoms. I believe artists should also be responsible not to harm people.
The CCP, as a public forum, should express the high ideals of the Filipino people, who in their Constitution’s Preamble have identified themselves as God-loving. Thus, what is apparently blasphemous (or at least disrespectful of religious beliefs) does not have a place in such public space.
You know this better than I do: like the media’s, artists’ freedom is also not absolute; it is kept ‘human’ by being responsible, respecting human dignity and the natural law.
Thanks for your time.
[…] Icerocket blogs- read full christian families article: CommentaryIn defense of free expression […]
POORLY WRITTEN. CIRCULAR ARGUMENTATION. PURE CRAP