|
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Malilong: Individual choice
By Frank Malilong Jr.
The Other Side
Two films are in the news because some people want them banned from exhibition. The first one, a work of fiction, has yet to be shown in the country but the verdict is already out: it is profane. The second is a documentary and has been in circulation for some time. The objectors do not want it shown because it no longer speaks the truth.
There seems to be no doubt that both “The Da Vinci Code” and “Bunso” offend the sensibilities of many people. The question, however, is whether the hurt to the faithful and, in the case of “Bunso,” to those who worked hard to improve the lot of the street children, is sufficient to justify government censorship.
In his book on constitutional law, Justice Isagani Cruz cites the 17th century English poet, John Milton, who said that it is impossible to find a man who is “base enough to accept the office of censor and at the same time good enough to perform its duties.”
The statement, said the eminent jurist, reflected the general sentiment against censorship under which the censor assumes the role of political, moral, social and artistic arbiter; applying only his own subjective standards in choosing what is good and what is bad for the people. Such authority, according to Cruz, is anathema in a free society.
This is the main reason I protested the decision of the organizers of the recent Integrated Bar regional convention to stop the showing of “Bunso” during the concluding lecture of the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education seminar. Under what moral or legal authority could they choose for us what we should or should not view?
Admittedly, the conditions at the Bagong Buhay Rehabilitation Center depicted in “Bunso” are no longer true, thanks to the efforts of a group of volunteers led by the Cebu City mayor’s wife, Margot Osmeña. But since we don’t deny that once upon a time these conditions did exist, why are we complaining?
Don’t get me wrong. The misimpression that the film tends to create, especially among those who do not know the actual conditions of minor detainees nowadays is a valid cause for concern, but it is not enough to curtail or defeat the freedom of expression.
Let us appeal to the good sense of the exhibitors to tell the truth. But that is as far as we can go. If they are wanting in that sense, we can tell the truth ourselves, perhaps through another documentary.
As for “Da Vinci,” why deny access to a film that all of us have already concluded to be evil even before we have seen it?
Those who think they have matured enough in faith as to remain unshaken even under the fiercest onslaught should be allowed to undergo their test of fire.
On the other hand, those who are convinced that the scenes in the movie are as disgusting as the idea of him raping his own mother or daughter can always stay home.
The point is that no one should be allowed to impose his own judgment as to what is good or what is bad to see on anyone who is already of age. Let the individual make his choice.
For Bisaya stories from Cebu. Click here. (May 16, 2006 issue)
Write letter to the editor.Click here.
Join the Sun.Star message board.Click here. |
|
[return to top]
[home]
[network page]
|
LOCAL NEWS
BUSINESS
OPINION
SPORTS
LIFESTYLE
FEATURE
SUPERBALITA
WEEKEND
|
