Non Sequiturs

We've heard a lot of this from those who claim that the administrative revocation of Rappler's SEC registration means that our fundamental freedoms are under attack.

That doesn’t quite follow.

Our freedom of speech is not the subject of some corporation's operating license. And we ought not to depend on one business entitiy, or business entities alone, and their abilities to obtain operational funds and turn profits to safeguard our free speech. 

This fallacy gives rise to the canard that revoking this will lead to government muffling our voices.This is flawed thinking. It denies us the evident reality that our Constitution has afforded us the right to say what we want.

There are thousands of other media outlets with views that are no different from, or even “worse,” in a manner of speaking, than Rappler’s. To their benefit, they follow the law and stay out of trouble. 

In fact, the proliferation of blogs and online news platforms are clear proof of a flexing movement of new and alternative forms of speech, initiatives that broaden the narrative of the contemporary Filipino.

Along with this dizzying seascape is the wave of inaccurate and fake news, useless political noise, inane stories about elicit affairs—all of which constituting a Constitutional freedom exercised to the hilt and, in the opinion of many, even to a fault.

Some insist on hinging this right on the existence of a single corporate entity, they even feel the need to “stand" by it. It would seem that they relish the idea of foreign ownership or control of this corporation and will even help defend this provision. 

But they are misled by a canard founded on a non sequitur.

And so we leave them to their opinion, sad as it is.