1 of 12. In the week since Judge Montesa’s decision—“uncomprehending, unconstitutional, unjust”—found @mariaressa and Rey Santos guilty of cyber-libel, there have been at least three types of response. A thread. (Prep for column-writing) #HoldTheLine
2/ First came the immediate outrage over the decision, for its obvious ignorance of the work of journalism and its deliberate undermining of the constitutionally guaranteed rights to freedom of expression and a free press. #HoldTheLine
3/ Then there was (and still is) a deliberate, defensive campaign in support of the decision and the judge; the decision’s summary of the facts and its creative interpretation of the law were hailed as a victory for the private citizen and an indictment of reckless journalism.
4/ The third was the more muted, more measured pushback of those who had read the decision and found the judge’s summary of evidence to be either convincing or, at a minimum, uncomfortable. #HoldTheLine #DefendPressFreedom
5/ Whether Rappler mounted an effective defense or came up short on evidence, the legal questions so confidently misinterpreted by the judge have serious repercussions that affect all of us. These consequences demand that the ruling be reversed or overturned. #HoldTheLine
6/ In the last few days, I have seen more of the second and the third kind of response. They are diametrically opposed, but have one main thing in common: They take Judge Montesa’s summary of the facts as fair. I believe they are wrong. #HoldTheLine
7/ I can understand where the third response is coming from. If you take Judge Montesa’s summary of the evidence as gospel, the facts seem to suggest what Harry Roque said: That the verdict was the result of “bad journalism” and “bad lawyering.” #HoldTheLine
8/ But Harry has turned his back on fundamental issues long thought to define him: human rights, international law, rule of law, and so on. It is only logical that we receive his remarks on the verdict as said in bad faith. #HoldTheLine
9/ I devote my column tomorrow to a close reading of Judge Montesa’s summary of the facts. I only had space to point out 3 important “missing” facts. (This thread in fact started as column material, but cut for lack of space.) #HoldTheLine
Check here: opinion.inquirer.net/byline/john-ne…
Check here: opinion.inquirer.net/byline/john-ne…
10/ My aim was to prove that the summary is flawed and misleading, and that the unjust decision is the direct result. The real problem remains the Judge’s unusual interpretation of the law, but the unfair summing-up hurts—all of us. #HoldTheLine
rappler.com/nation/263987-…
rappler.com/nation/263987-…
11/ One more thing. We should settle a separate but related point. I see some people, mainly non-lawyers as far as I can tell, resort to the following argument: "Non-lawyers have no business discussing matters of law." This is anti-democratic and just plain wrong. #HoldTheLine
12/12 Laws are crafted by legislators, not all of whom are lawyers. They are our agents; we are their principals. Also, it is every citizen’s responsibility to take part in the public discourse. Above all, the law is too important to be left to lawyers alone. #HoldTheLine
"But I would also like to contest the fairness of Judge Montesa's summary of the facts." Here is this week's column:
opinion.inquirer.net/131056/whats-m…
opinion.inquirer.net/131056/whats-m…
