Thursday, June 19, 2008 Seares: Reply bill vague and absurd By Pachico A. Seares News Sense
LAST June 11, just before it adjourned, the Senate approved on second reading Senate Bill 2150, making the right to reply in media compulsory.
The House has yet to act on its version and a bicameral committee is still to reconcile the two bills.
It's unlikely they will junk legislated right to reply. But they can still correct flaws.
The bill, a prior restraint, is not constitutional. For now, let's just see if it's clear and practical.
It's not. It messes up with the editorial process and may swamp newsrooms with petty and vengeful lawsuits.
The Senate bill demands that the reply must be in the same print space, broadcast program, or electronic device.
Replies from the aggrieved will crowd out more urgent and important news and derail the vital function of editing content.
Who has the right?
The bill covers all persons (1) accused directly or indirectly of committing, having committed, or intending to commit a crime, or (2) criticized by innuendo, suggestion or rumor for any lapse of behavior in public or private life.
While the first limits complainants to those accused in relation to a crime, the second opens floodgates to all sorts of complaints.
Does the bill apply only to specific accusations of criminal deed or intent and to innuendos or rumors?
It's not only vague. It can lead to the absurd situation where privileged communication is negated by compulsory right to
reply.
Is that what legislators intend? Apparently the authors don't know how the press works, or they won't be hitting back at journalists with a spiteful law.
