3 Stars and a Sun
I think that with regards to our national symbol, I understand that careful measures should be undertaken. Free speech and expression are true and important, but people all too often forget the moral responsibility that goes with it.
Because one can always argue freedom of expression on virtually ANYTHING but is that really the trump card over what's right and decent? Who's to know what's right and decent anyway? The world isn't black and white, but I like to think that basic Golden Rules apply.
But I digress. I don't think this issue is junk. It's clear that the law needs A LOT of updating, but more so, our perception of who we are and how we do things needs some re-evaluating. How can we do that, if we can't even decide on how to value and present our own national identifiers?
-B.L.
-------------
For all intents and purposes please imagine that the following opinion is delivered in the calm and measured tone of honest debate.
"one can always argue freedom of expression on virtually ANYTHING but is that really the trump card over what's right and decent?" [sic]
First, when you said you can use Freedom of Expression as an argument for virtually anything what I think you meant was you can use it to justify virtually anything. That would be incorrect. Freedom of Expression ends when it infringes on another person's human rights. That is a monumental principle, and lets not confuse it. You are allowed to say whatever you want about me. (As long as it is not libel.) While I am not allowed to punch you because of it.
Second, it's not a trump card. It's a constitutional guarantee and I'll tell you why. It's related to---Third, what you're talking about is selective censorship. You cite decency and morality. Lets forget for a moment that legislating based on moral systems is tricky at best and fascist at worst, because moral systems are not shared by everyone. Lets concentrate on just this: censorship is making people accountable for their thoughts. Not just what they believe, but what they imagine, what they are confused about, their creativity, their frustrations; those are what censorship makes criminal. Flag-misuse laws don't just punish those who capitalize on patriotism to sell a jacket or a magazine. It's worse than that. Flag-misuse laws equate those greedy people with artists, activists, philosophers, honest to god patriots, and that teenager who wants to get a 3-stars-and-a-sun tattoo because he listened to Francis M for the first time.
You think the golden rule should apply. I think it does apply. I want Freedom of Expression so I support your right to express yourself. And the chance that I may see something that offends me is a price I'm willing to pay. Besides, I am comforted by the fact that I don't have to watch.
But lets not digress. You said "our perception of who we are and how we do things needs some re-evaluating. How can we do that, if we can't even decide on how to value and present our own national identifiers?". So your main argument is that national identity, exemplified in our symbols, informs our actions, our culture, as a people. I believe there is some truth to this. Just as there is truth in the exact opposite, that our shared cultural experiences inform our treatment and creation of national symbols and a national identity. Either way, laws about what you can and can't do to the flag, laws that punish with jail time and fines, treat the symptom, not the disease.
I reiterate my first point in my first comment in this thread: rolling out issues like these makes it seem like we value cultural dignity while doing nothing concrete to strengthen the population's pride in themselves and the nation, regardless of our good intentions. We need more history teachers and better textbooks. We need more accountability and transparency in the armed forces and the police. We need to renovate public parks, fund the Philippine Film Archive, clean up the Pasig river, invest in local production, make contraception available to all...And most importantly we need to spend some time and effort calling for stricter enforcement of laws that are far more important, like those that address fuel efficiency, automobile upkeep, and clean air.
Because, my neighbor has the right to drive a car of whatever color (even red, white, blue and yellow) but he doesn't have the right to give kids asthma.
Lets all digress from this issue. What do you say?
Because one can always argue freedom of expression on virtually ANYTHING but is that really the trump card over what's right and decent? Who's to know what's right and decent anyway? The world isn't black and white, but I like to think that basic Golden Rules apply.
But I digress. I don't think this issue is junk. It's clear that the law needs A LOT of updating, but more so, our perception of who we are and how we do things needs some re-evaluating. How can we do that, if we can't even decide on how to value and present our own national identifiers?
-B.L.
-------------
For all intents and purposes please imagine that the following opinion is delivered in the calm and measured tone of honest debate.
"one can always argue freedom of expression on virtually ANYTHING but is that really the trump card over what's right and decent?" [sic]
First, when you said you can use Freedom of Expression as an argument for virtually anything what I think you meant was you can use it to justify virtually anything. That would be incorrect. Freedom of Expression ends when it infringes on another person's human rights. That is a monumental principle, and lets not confuse it. You are allowed to say whatever you want about me. (As long as it is not libel.) While I am not allowed to punch you because of it.
Second, it's not a trump card. It's a constitutional guarantee and I'll tell you why. It's related to---Third, what you're talking about is selective censorship. You cite decency and morality. Lets forget for a moment that legislating based on moral systems is tricky at best and fascist at worst, because moral systems are not shared by everyone. Lets concentrate on just this: censorship is making people accountable for their thoughts. Not just what they believe, but what they imagine, what they are confused about, their creativity, their frustrations; those are what censorship makes criminal. Flag-misuse laws don't just punish those who capitalize on patriotism to sell a jacket or a magazine. It's worse than that. Flag-misuse laws equate those greedy people with artists, activists, philosophers, honest to god patriots, and that teenager who wants to get a 3-stars-and-a-sun tattoo because he listened to Francis M for the first time.
You think the golden rule should apply. I think it does apply. I want Freedom of Expression so I support your right to express yourself. And the chance that I may see something that offends me is a price I'm willing to pay. Besides, I am comforted by the fact that I don't have to watch.
But lets not digress. You said "our perception of who we are and how we do things needs some re-evaluating. How can we do that, if we can't even decide on how to value and present our own national identifiers?". So your main argument is that national identity, exemplified in our symbols, informs our actions, our culture, as a people. I believe there is some truth to this. Just as there is truth in the exact opposite, that our shared cultural experiences inform our treatment and creation of national symbols and a national identity. Either way, laws about what you can and can't do to the flag, laws that punish with jail time and fines, treat the symptom, not the disease.
I reiterate my first point in my first comment in this thread: rolling out issues like these makes it seem like we value cultural dignity while doing nothing concrete to strengthen the population's pride in themselves and the nation, regardless of our good intentions. We need more history teachers and better textbooks. We need more accountability and transparency in the armed forces and the police. We need to renovate public parks, fund the Philippine Film Archive, clean up the Pasig river, invest in local production, make contraception available to all...And most importantly we need to spend some time and effort calling for stricter enforcement of laws that are far more important, like those that address fuel efficiency, automobile upkeep, and clean air.
Because, my neighbor has the right to drive a car of whatever color (even red, white, blue and yellow) but he doesn't have the right to give kids asthma.
Lets all digress from this issue. What do you say?