Comments on: Locsin on the Right to Reply (edited) http://www.quezon.ph/2009/05/26/locsin-on-the-right-to-reply/ Punditry. Politics. History. Commentary. Sat, 04 Feb 2012 11:35:33 +0000 hourly 1 By: Bert http://www.quezon.ph/2009/05/26/locsin-on-the-right-to-reply/comment-page-1/#comment-1044678 Bert Wed, 27 May 2009 06:15:41 +0000 http://www.quezon.ph/2009/05/26/locsin-on-the-right-to-reply/#comment-1044678 come on, guys. I know there's that 'conjugal dictatorship' thingie, but, conjugal corruption is stretching it a bit far already, heheh. come on, guys. I know there’s that ‘conjugal dictatorship’ thingie, but, conjugal corruption is stretching it a bit far already, heheh.

]]> By: BrianB http://www.quezon.ph/2009/05/26/locsin-on-the-right-to-reply/comment-page-1/#comment-1044660 BrianB Wed, 27 May 2009 02:22:13 +0000 http://www.quezon.ph/2009/05/26/locsin-on-the-right-to-reply/#comment-1044660 Right to reply for ordinary citizens is an amazing idea. You can't trust publishers to be ethical. Right to reply for ordinary citizens is an amazing idea. You can’t trust publishers to be ethical.

]]> By: Carl http://www.quezon.ph/2009/05/26/locsin-on-the-right-to-reply/comment-page-1/#comment-1044651 Carl Tue, 26 May 2009 23:50:20 +0000 http://www.quezon.ph/2009/05/26/locsin-on-the-right-to-reply/#comment-1044651 Just as there are many hoods wearing robes, so are there many hoods wielding pens. I welcome anything that will provide a check to the excesses of media. Just as there are many hoods wearing robes, so are there many hoods wielding pens. I welcome anything that will provide a check to the excesses of media.

]]> By: supremo http://www.quezon.ph/2009/05/26/locsin-on-the-right-to-reply/comment-page-1/#comment-1044640 supremo Tue, 26 May 2009 20:32:54 +0000 http://www.quezon.ph/2009/05/26/locsin-on-the-right-to-reply/#comment-1044640 Mike Arroyo is really a 'private citizen' because his wife is not the President of the Philippines. Mike Arroyo is really a ‘private citizen’ because his wife is not the President of the Philippines.

]]> By: TonGuE-tWisTeD http://www.quezon.ph/2009/05/26/locsin-on-the-right-to-reply/comment-page-1/#comment-1044631 TonGuE-tWisTeD Tue, 26 May 2009 17:37:08 +0000 http://www.quezon.ph/2009/05/26/locsin-on-the-right-to-reply/#comment-1044631 <i>the ridiculous insistence of the Palace that the President’s husband is a “private citizen”</i> - MB The amendment you proposed is excellent. Mike is a public pig...er, <b>fig</b>ure. the ridiculous insistence of the Palace that the President’s husband is a “private citizen” – MB

The amendment you proposed is excellent. Mike is a public pig…er, figure.

]]> By: manuelbuencamino http://www.quezon.ph/2009/05/26/locsin-on-the-right-to-reply/comment-page-1/#comment-1044615 manuelbuencamino Tue, 26 May 2009 10:08:35 +0000 http://www.quezon.ph/2009/05/26/locsin-on-the-right-to-reply/#comment-1044615 This is the only argument for the bill -"A Right to Reply is actually mainly of interest to people who are private citizens, do not live in the public eye, have no access to the powers-that-be, and who find themselves dragged into public scandal or controversy, without any means to properly defend themselves." "Were Congress to pass a law giving ordinary citizens the Right to Reply to articles/stories/broadcasts they believe unfairly slurred them, I think the public would applaud. But such a law would have to distinguish between ordinary citizens and those who, by virtue or position or affinity are public figures (for example, the ridiculous insistence of the Palace that the President’s husband is a “private citizen”). And so an even shorter amendment to the bill would be adding the phrase "excluding public figures." This is the only argument for the bill -”A Right to Reply is actually mainly of interest to people who are private citizens, do not live in the public eye, have no access to the powers-that-be, and who find themselves dragged into public scandal or controversy, without any means to properly defend themselves.”

“Were Congress to pass a law giving ordinary citizens the Right to Reply to articles/stories/broadcasts they believe unfairly slurred them, I think the public would applaud. But such a law would have to distinguish between ordinary citizens and those who, by virtue or position or affinity are public figures (for example, the ridiculous insistence of the Palace that the President’s husband is a “private citizen”).

And so an even shorter amendment to the bill would be adding the phrase “excluding public figures.”

]]>