OPEN LETTER: A Call for Freedom of Expression & of Religion

Harry Roque's column last Saturday published in PDI enlightened me on the debate on the limitations of Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Religion. This is about the controversial movie entitled "Innocence of Muslims" that depicts Mohammad as a fraud, a womanizer and a pedophile. A trailer has been uploaded on YouTube caused colossal violent reaction especially our Muslim brothers that led to the death of US Ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher Stevens.

 

His death can be condemned as a barbaric act but he did not die in vain. His death opened a new symbol of freedom, redefined the freedom of expression and freedom of religion - worldwide.

Accordingly US Supreme Court explained that "at the heart of the 1^st  Amendment is the recognition of the fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern. The freedom to speak one's mind is not only an aspect of individual liberty - and thus a good unto itself - but also is essential to the common quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole. We have therefore been particularly vigilant to ensure that individual expressions of ideas remain free from governmentally imposed sanctions. The 1^st  Amendment recognizes no such thing as "false" idea.” As Justice Holmes wrote, "When men have realized that the time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade ideas - that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market..." which even extends to offensive speech "the fact that society may find speech offensive is not sufficient reason for suppressing it. Indeed, it is the speakers opinion that gives offense, that consequence is a reason for according it constitutional protection. For it is the tenet of the 1^st Amendment that the government must remain neutral in the market place of ideas.”

According to Prof. Roque 1987 Philippine Constitution’s provision for freedom of religion consists of two negative state obligations; (1) not to endorse a religion referred to as non-establishment clause and (2) not to interfere with its’ free exercise.

From the files of our Supreme Court, INC v. CA states that “in a State where there ought to be no difference between the appearance and the reality of freedom of religion, the remedy against bad theology is better theology. The bedrock of freedom religion is freedom of thought and it is best served by encouraging the marketplace of dueling ideas. When the luxury of time permits, the market place of ideas demands that speech should be met by more speech for it is the spark of opposite speech, the heat of colliding ideas that can fan the embers of truth.”

Ours is a country that will ban this trailer/movie, but I believe in a democratic country that I live in, this is not the remedy - allow the free interchange of ideas, of expression after all, all speech remains constitutionally protected.