New and Used Car Talk Reviews Hot Cars Comparison Automotive Community

The Largest Car Forum in the Philippines

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 42
  1. Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    8,451
    #21
    hindi kaya parang inaatake nito ang freedom of speech?

    parang hindi ko gusto etong bill na eto. dun palang sa "to restore its integrity and honor", parang may gusto dun takpan. hmmmm...

  2. Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    9,894
    #22
    Quote Originally Posted by testament11 View Post
    hindi kaya parang inaatake nito ang freedom of speech?
    that is exactly what is happening

    and it isn't even that subtle. akala siguro nila tanga ang Pilipino

  3. Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    29,354
    #23
    Quote Originally Posted by manunulat View Post
    So, why curtail in blanket criticisms? Did criticism catapulted the present administration to malacanang?
    And the same critics are revealing the evils and money plunderings of the present administration of malancanyang. Example is the fertilizer scam where the first gentleman is involved. The new bill is meant to minimize this kind of news reporting.

  4. Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    22,705
    #24
    The "Right to Reply" is all right. Most often, whoever gets the first sound-bite wins... and the subject of the news is all but helpless to correct the impressions given by said news report, whether it is factual or not.

    In principle, we always do allow both sides to air their stories online, anyway... it's a free forum.

    Besides, unless you post your actual contact details, you can't be sued for slander online...

    Ang pagbalik ng comeback...

  5. Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    494
    #25
    Hindi naman bago itong right to reply. Sa ganang akin, tama lang naman dahil may ilang dambuhalang media at media practitioner na ginagamit ang kanilang profession para isulong ang kanilang makapansariling interest ng walang pakundangan sa karapatan ng iba. Marami sa media ay envelopmental ang approach o di kaya AC-DC (attack collect, defend collect). Ang pobreng mga biktima kung ilathala man ang sagot ay babaluktutin pa(editorial prerogative daw).

    Isa pa, mababawasan siguro ang mga balitang paninira (binayarang press release ng kalaban) dahil makakalibre yung sagot ng kabila. Palagay ko lang mas maaliwalas at makabuluhan ang magiging mga balita sa halip ng puro pasaring sa kalaban at walang kumpay na paninira ng iba.

    Isa pang dahilan ay ang masyadong kapangyarihan ng media na hindi naman marunong mag renda sa sarili. Marami rin sa media ay pagaarin na ng politiko. Kaya nga naman ang mga sikat na politico natin ay halos mga galing sa media. Nawalan na tuloy ng pag-asang makaupo sa puwesto ang mga taga labas ng media kahit anong galing pa nila.

    Siguro naman hindi bobo ang mga Europeano may kahintulad na batas tulad ng nga sumususod:

    Right of Reply in Europe MediaWise Briefing by Mike Jempson February 2005

    AUSTRIA The Press Act of 1922 granted anyone who was the subject to an incorrect statement in the press the right to publish a reply, free of charge. Article 9 of the 1981 Media Act extended the right to all mass media, but also allowed the media to refuse to publish a reply if it were demonstrably untrue. If the media refuses to publish a legitimate reply, the complainant can sue for compensation. DENMARK The Danish Press Council, established in 1964, was put on a statutory footing by Article 41 of the 1992 Media Liability Act. It now operates according to Press Ethical Rules, adopted by the Danish Parliament with the agreement of the Danish National Union of Journalists, which acknowledge a Right of Reply on matters of factual inaccuracy. Challenges must be made within four weeks of publication, and editors have 4 weeks to comply. FRANCE The Right of Reply has been available in France since the Freedom of the Press Act of 29 July 1881 to anyone mentioned or clearly alluded to in the press, whether or not the article is inaccurate or defamatory. The seldom-used Article 12 requires that "The editorial director must include free of charge in the most prominent position of the very next issue of the newspaper or periodical, all corrections addressed to him by any public servant pertaining to acts carried out in accordance with his or her duty which have been incorrectly reported by the said newspaper or periodical". Article 13 allows a person (natural or legal) to exercise the right of reply, which can be of the same length and in the same typeface as the offending article. Daily newspapers must respond within three days, periodicals within the next edition. However the reply must not violate the rights of others or attack the integrity of the journalist. Speedy legal remedies are available if an editor refuses to comply with requests to exercise what is seen as a fundamental citizen’s right. Since 4 Jan 1993 the right now applies to reporting of false statements made in court.

    GERMANY Each Lander in the Federal Republic has a Press Law which obliges newspapers and periodicals to publish replies (or ‘counter-versions’) from people affected by an assertion of fact in an article. Section 11 of these Press Laws requires that replies be in the same typeface and given the same prominence as the original article, but may not exceed its length, and they are restricted to correction of facts. Complainants have 3 months to request their reply, and editors who fail to comply voluntarily can be ordered to do so by the civil courts. GREECE Clause 5 of Article 14 of the Greek Constitution confers a Right of Reply upon all citizens with regard to ‘inaccurate publication or broadcast’ and obliges the offending medium to provide a ‘full and immediate retraction… (or) reply’. It also allows the law to prescribe the ‘manner in which the right to reply is exercised’.

    FINLAND Since the Press Law of 1919 anyone who can demonstrate that published material is incorrect or offensive has the right to demand equal space for a correction. Failure to comply could result in a fine. However regulation is now managed by the Council for Mass Media (CMM), set up in 1968.
    The CMM acknowledges a Right of Reply in its Code of Practice, signed up to by publishers’ and journalists associations, and requires editors to provide an equable right of reply

    NETHERLANDS Although there is no statutory Right of Reply as such, since 1992 the Civil Code and the Code of Legal Action have acknowledged a right of correction of factual inaccuracy. The courts may decide how correction should appear when adjudicating on compensation claims.

    NORWAY Anyone directly affected by publication of a factual inaccuracy has the right to demand a reply within one year, under Section 30 of the Penal Code. The courts may (but rarely do) impose fines for non-compliance, and if a complaint is upheld, Section 430a requires prominent publication of the court’s judgement.

    SPAIN Under Ordinary Law 2/84 of 26 January any person directly affected by publication of incorrect of damaging information may require the print or broadcast publisher to publish a corrected version, without comment and with the same prominence as the original. Failure to comply can invoke court action to determine what sort of correction is appropriate. The right is essentially concerned with fairness, since newspapers may continue to separately assert that their version is correct. Decisions as to the truth of the different versions may be determined by separate court action. There is no requirement for the subject of information.

    SWEDEN There is no statutory Right of Reply, but it exists de facto as a result of established practice under the Freedom of the Press Act and the operation of the Press Ombudsman and Press Council (which includes representation of employers and journalists organisations). The Ombudsman mediates where challenges are met with non-compliance. Replies are usually given sufficient prominence to ensure that readers are aware of the challenge.

  6. Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,099
    #26
    sabi nga ni Angelina Jolie sa movie na nakalimutan ko title pero sya yun nanay ng conqueror ng Persian Empire, "slander is not power". pero sa Pilipinas, it looks like slander is.

    talo talaga pulitiko dyan. para ka na din tinalo ng mga mabubunganga, o mga taong naniniwala that

    mali ang "actions speak louder than words" at mas pinaniniwalaan ang

    "the pen is mightier than the sword"

    i'm for the bill. why? kasi wala sa DNA ko manira ng kahit sino. kung may kalaban man ako, i'll deal with it head-on.

  7. Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    71
    #27
    Maganda idea iyong "pen is mightier than the sword". Ipinaglaban iyan ng ating pambansang bayani na si Jose Rizal. Kahit si Ninoy, sa pagkakaintindi ko, iyan ang palatuntunin.

    Kaya marapat lang na maging makapangyarihan lalo na ang media. Ang media ay public service. Malaki ang papel nito sa buong mundo. Hindi ito puwede buwagin. Ang impormasiyon galing sa media ay hindi maaaring supilin lalo na kung factual. Hindi ba maka-comunismo ang pagsupil ng press freedom?

    Sa Constitution, expressly provided and free speech and expression. Ang right of reply ay implied lamang. Ang express ay iba sa implied. Hindi kaya tabunan ng implied and expressly provided.

    Hangad kong maging mas matatalino ang pinoy kumpara sa banyagang Europeano. Meron sariling pamamaraan ang Pilipino para sa sariling problema. Ang constitution natin sa aking pagkakaintindi ay impluensiya ng Americano at hindi ng Europeano. Subukan kaya ipasa sa America ang right of reply bill. Mag-alburuto kaya ang mga Americano (ang kinikilalang champion of democracy).

    Assuming, me right of reply, eto ay pansariling responsibilidad ng tinamaan. Kung wala nagawang kalokohan, ang natural na mangyayari ay walang babatikos. Kung meron kalokohan, dapat maghanda ng panggastos para madepensahan ang kalokohan. Lalo na kung pumasok sa pagiging public servant, dapat asahan na kaakibat nito ang pagkakaroon ng pagbatikos. Sagot na ng public servant ang pagdepensa sa sarili. So, exempted sana ang mga politiko dito kung taos puso sila sa panukala.

    Just my 2 cents worth.

  8. Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    494
    #28
    Here's another point for the right of reply bill. The state can use the media to muzzle any dissent or opposition by making sure that its propaganda is unopposed and any dissent unpublished. This is how Hitler mesmerized the otherwise intelligent Germans using Joseph Goebbel principle that a lie if repeated enough times unopposed will soon be accepted as truth.

    How many lives do you think Philippine media practioners have wrongly destroyed just so they can make a quick profit either by being paid by the attacker or being paid by the target of attack.

  9. Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    71
    #29
    The argument for reply bill seems to protect the innocent ones. A study then should be done if the media are really attacking innocent personalities. Another study should also be done if the media are attacking guilty personalities.

    Attacking the innocent is wrong. But attacking the guilty ones is an obligation. Under ordinary course, the media's curiosity is aroused by the guilty ones. To attack an innocent one would become the isolated case.

    Would it be fair to pass a bill that indeed may protect the isolated case but at the expense of what is in natural order? Right of reply may protect the rights of the few but how about the right of the majority to know the wrongdoings which are of public concern?

    2 cents.

  10. Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    494
    #30
    If you check the Constitution, the most comprehensive among granted rights are those protecting the accused. It is its goal that those who people who are accused of crimes that could result to the deprivation of their life, liberty and property are entitled to these sacred rights which includes right to face the accuser, right to a good defense lawyer, right against self-incrimination among others.

    However, those accused in the media could suffer far worst than losing their life since they only lose their reputation, respect, honor, dignity, privacy which to many are more important than life itself. Of course, there are many who would not give a second thought about losing their dignity and honor if only they can a little more (these are people who forefeited their souls to the devil already, many without even knowing it)

    The rich, powerful and mostly corrupt can easily buy media practitioners to either silence them or to publish or broadcast their replies. They do not need this right of reply law for there are just too many media people whom they can easily buy with other people's money.

    It is mostly the working middle class who might have resisted the corrupting influence of the powerful that are being victimized by hired media guns who need to have the opportunity to, at least, reply. The truth is their only defense against elaborately hatched demolition jobs done by media hirelings.

    I'm sure there are many who would rather suffer in silence accepting that this is the way our system works, the powerful will alway have their dirty ways. But for those who have the courage to stand up must at least be given the chance to be heard for the small voice of truth reverberates louder than the cacophony of lies. Truth speaks directly to the conscience and if there are still enough of us Filipinos, who still listens to theirs then, who knows, our silent suffering might be alleviated a by a little faint hope.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Right of Reply Bill could suppress posting?