I guess everyone knew about the recent Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack in Paris that made global headlines and elicited so many opinions from everywhere. "Je suis Charle" became trending as a way of showing support in condemning terrorism. It may have not happened in our country but it sure is the concern of the entire world. Surprisingly, I saw myself tuning in to CNN & BBC on wee hours just for updates on how or where it will all end (which resulted to a broken TV after 2 days).
There are so many issues encompassing the incident, though I will focus here on is Freedom of Speech - that was also triggered by the recent Bottomline episode in ABS CBN hosted by Boy Abunda. The discourse began on a broad view of what happened, then led to a hardcore debate about freedom of speech. Since they invited guests like a human rights activist, a seasoned lawyer and a journalism professor, definitely there was a clash of ideas. And by the end, they were divided to two: one who supports the publication, and the skeptic. I tried hard to listen to every guest's arguments, each citing provisions and examples as their basis.
Bottomline: I am not Charlie. I am for ethical journalism.
With lack of law knowledge, I am not really the best person to say my opinion on this (claiming it already). But hey, I have my freedom of speech, right?
Freedom is a very complex word as it denotes exemptions and no restrictions. Such thing is subject to each person's interpretation. For me, freedom of speech / expression is an abused and abusive right. Why? Because it's an excuse to everything (just like what I did above). And I find it very silly. Don't get me wrong. I hold dear my every right as a person, as citizen to this country. My freedom of speech/expression is something important for me, though isn't that when you are given something, for free or without any cost, you should be modest on how you will use it. That's why I am for RESPONSIBLE JOURNALISM as how the professor explained it.
He said, responsible journalism is guarded by ethical standards. It is having a clear eye on what is right from wrong, and choosing the right over the wrong. True: identifying what is moral or immoral is highly subjective. So, as they say, I have all the means of being what I want to. No question, I am on that idea. That is our freedom. As much as we have our personal beliefs, that doesn't give us the freedom to question others, more so to mock them. Why? Simply because it is theirs, not ours. That's why dispute starts, we focus too much on criticizing than respecting. Why can't we live in our own nutshells?
And so the activist questions (as always), where is freedom of speech if journalism is restricted? It is not restricting, it is having a sense of responsibility. What grown ups clearly know of. I believe writers / media are given those skills for purpose and I am pretty sure it is not to harm others. RIGHT? So the activist will say, they are there to spark arguments. So I ask, that will lead to? Never ending arguments still. Is that the kind of situation we want - pure of thought battles? Because we all know it doesn't solve anything, nor for one side to concede. I stand for responsible journalism that stands for his / her opinion. That's why I am not Charlie, I clearly don't get the point of mocking others for the pleasure of "because I can".
Isn't our (the world) goal to have peace? Yes, it is! Positivity may not be enough now, but it's nice to believe it will happen. In my opinion, it will happen if we focus on protecting our own rights rather than destroying others. The world may never unite but we may live in peace with supreme understanding of each other. It is so ideal but very simple.
So there, I practiced my freedom of speech - responsibly.
