What can Facebook face? – The Manila Times

OVER the shut-down of sites supposedly supportive of government, including pages of government agencies meant to stir people against the communist New People’s Army, President Rodrigo Duterte poised the threat of government sanctions on Facebook, including making it inaccessible from the Philippines.

The Philippines will not be the first. The People’s Republic of China has never allowed its nationals to access Facebook.

Facebook has, in many ways, democratized the media. It is the recourse of those who would never be granted air time on giant television networks nor their opinions see print in the popularly read newspapers in the country. Of course, being the open platform that it is, you get a mix of wisdom and stupidity, thoughtfulness and thoughtlessness, nobility and rubbish. But that is the cost of free access. And when one has a considerable following, Facebook can be a very potent platform, indeed. In our Covid times, basic and higher education have had many uses for Facebook. Lessons can be uploaded and its Messenger component offers the possibility of a virtual classroom.

So, the question is whether the State can cause Facebook’s demise within our constitutional framework. Definitely it would close off one avenue of free expression and disable one form of a free “press.” One can even argue convincingly that the right to assembly would be endangered, since people virtually assemble on Facebook. Of all freedoms and rights, speech, expression and the press are always accorded a premium, considering that they are vital to the subsistence of a democracy. But democratic space cannot be cornered only by those who dislike the government and even want it ousted from power. Those who rally to the government and support it have as much right to their place in the meadow of a hundred flowers (or poison ivies!).

But, as the recent case of ABS-CBN Corp. amply demonstrated, pleas in the name of freedom of the press, of speech and of expression are unavailing when the media of communication do not comply with government regulation, in this case, the need for a franchise. So, the right to communicate does not necessarily entail the legitimation of the medium used. Media must comply with the laws and rules of operation laid down by the Republic.

What makes Facebook in particular a target for adverse government action is what has been perceived to be its partisanship. Why should anti-Duterte posts be left undisturbed and those supportive of his government be deleted? Its administrators are self-appointed guardians of morals even, determining what constitutes moral and immoral publication. We rile at censorship when exercised by government, but Facebook freely exercises an untrammeled form of censorship, using standards all its own! And worse, it involves itself in the anti-insurgency drive of the government by blocking anti-insurgency government propaganda.

While there is apparently nothing in the Constitution that imposes non-partisanship on the part of media — in the United States, Fox News is Trump and CNN is Biden — there is a provision that requires that ownership and management of mass media “shall be limited to citizens of the Philippines, or to corporations, cooperatives or associations, wholly owned and managed by such citizens.” The constitutional intent is clearly discernible: Media should at all times serve the interests of the nation. And when Facebook allows its platform to be used by those whose aim it is to overthrown government or to give aid and comfort to the war of attrition that insurgents have long waged against the State, then that is quite a different matter, demanding resolute State action!

rannie_aquino@csu.edu.ph
rannie_aquino@sanbeda.edu.ph
rannie_aquino@outlook.com

Original Source