let’s move on dot org.

i am not saying you stop from arguing. and nobody is stopping you. as i said, arguments are essentially good. and even if you’re anonymous, i also didn’t stop from answering your comments right?

but this is going on and on forever, there’s no more juice left to it. like you said, it is now on the hands of the courts.

let’s move on to other topics then. but don’t let this argument spoil our fun. pls check our archives so we can find more articles to argue about.

Please read back and note that all I’m saying is you keep pushing that i shouldn’t have used the racism comparative because you see it differently.

I am answering because you can’t seem to let go of “racism” as an analogy. I explained to you what i meant by it. You keep on bringing it up, pushing that I shouldn’t compare it.

Seems like you’re not even willing to entertain the thought of “racism” being used in its current urban context, plus it being used as an analogy.

“We also would not want Sec. Cabral attacking any blogger just on the grounds of him being a blogger.”

But of course, that would be just plain stupid.

By stating:

I think the NBI should be better off hunting the likes of Jason Ivlers than going after amateur bloggers. This move is clearly an implied threat to bloggers who express personal observations and opinions against the government.

… you are actually claiming that the NBI, ergo Sec. Cabral, is threatening bloggers just because it pursued a case against Ella.

What does this translate to then? That they shouldn’t have filed the case in the first place?

You say filing a case against Ella is bullying. You say they should refrain from going after “amateur bloggers” (“amateur” your word, not exactly the case here.

Yet when I call you on that statement and say Cabral has the right to file a libel suit and that it isn’t tantamount to bullying, you change your tune and say:

aptly, i think i am back in kindergarten. becuase the way i see it, however way you say that cabral is exercising her right to file cases (which i already said is her right), i still see analyze it as an act of bullying a blogger.

You say it is her right, yet you don’t want her to exercise it? You’d rather see it as an act of bullying a blogger and choose to use your platform to profess this bloggers vs. cabral dictum?

I understand your site’s tagline is: Imbalanced news. Biased views! Keep Social Climbing Alive! but i was honestly hoping it was but a marketing strat, not a disclaimer preempting and justifying what was to come.

Forgive me for hoping we could discuss the issue focusing on the core theme: blogging responsibility, without bias.

Also forgive me for wasting your web space by copying and pasting and believing that the best way to dissect and discuss issues is to quote what has been actually stated so as to limit misinterpretations and misunderstanding.

I cut and paste my previous comments because you seem to miss on the explanations and choose to push your point despite me having addressed it earlier. My copying and pasting is synonymous to saying “I already addressed that, see right here.” I just wanna show you that I already answered it, you just need to read what I’m saying and not impose your interpretation on my own.

I cut and paste your statements and references from Ella’s blog because I choose to let you see where I am basing my contentions. I prefer to focus on details/facts, and try to understand what you or Ella is saying before I spin off my own opinions.

***yes, identity is a big issue when it comes to me. i wouldn’t want to talk to a ghost.

Point taken. I will refrain from replying after this, Buraot.

I prefer to hold discussions or arguments. If it goes the way of a debate, then it’s time to stop.

Thanks for the discussion.

you are just wasting cyberspace here. pls don’t copy and paste points you’ve already raised on your previous comments.

aptly, i think i am back in kindergarten. becuase the way i see it, however way you say that cabral is exercising her right to file cases (which i already said is her right), i still see analyze it as an act of bullying a blogger.

i am not forcing, not even asking, anybody to share my opinion. it si mine and mine alone. if you have yours that is different than mine, i don’t have to spell it to you, i respect yours too.

and again, i am not the one pushing the racism comparative here. duh.

“We also would not want Sec. Cabral attacking any blogger just on the grounds of him being a blogger.”

But of course, that would be just plain stupid.

for all you know, rotting goods and “Susulpot din siguro ang laman ng mga mahiwagang kahon at mapapasakamay din ng mga tao…sa ARAW NG ELEKSYON.” is a common occurence in the Philippines. you know that don’t you? if you don’t then you need to spend more time on the ground.

“Free expression doesn’t translate to freedom sans culpability.”

Pls. check my earlier comment. There is no absolute freedom.

the other things yoyu raised have been discussed. mostly we agree on it anyway. fairness, responsibility, freedom is not absolute, sec. cabral’s right to file a case.

and on those that we do not agree on, i already answered it on my earlier comments.

so if you have new things to say, save the space for some other legit commenters.

if you want, you could browse on this site’s archives, for all you know, you can find some more issues we can not agree on. don’t get fixated in this post.

there you go again. don’t make everything too personal, we are discussing issues, you need not brand me.;P

saying “i’m sorry if you are as sensitive as sec. cabral” sensitivity is negative, i indeed am sensitive and being likened to SEC. Cabral is something someone has to be sorry abot.

if we go thru our discussions, it’s apparent i haven’t thrown any such aspersions and i am focusing on the matter at hand. what i’m saying is we can go discussing things without the need to resort to letting our biases kick in.

when i say insults, what i’m saying is you can dissect an issue without hurling insults like “pea-size brained” on someone who doesn’t do what you expect her to do or say “i can call you a narrow-minded soul as well” just because you do not know my name.

to each his own though. whatever floats your boat. i just thought discussions that do not derail us off a mature discussion of an important issue would be more preferable.

but on second thoughts, why can’t you at least make up a fictitious email address so at least i am discussing with a somehow legitimate person with a face rather than an anonymous one. why hide?

Why is my identity such a big issue for you? Does the legitimacy of the points i raise change just because you can’t see my face? I assure you whether I am anonymous or not, I will be holding the same views.

The only reason i am raising my take on the issue here is because i too am concerned about how this will affect the webosphere and our cyber laws.

I, however, limit my net interaction to the stuff that I feel the need to raise my views on. If i start net interaction thru e-mail, etc and not reply later, it would just be impolite.

****if you think a cabinet secretary is on tyhe same level as ella, again you need to requantify your terms because clearly you are not only mistaken but out of touch with the realities in our government.

I can’t help but smile when I read this. If that’s how you would describe someone who doesn’t share the same views as yours, then I respect that.

Let me say though that if you but notice (more so if the details I posted on the reply I sent was approved and posted), I base my take on facts and I try to be as balanced as I can. This much I can say, people are according too much power on cabinet secretaries, or government officials, for that matter.

***and even if ella is the daughter of the PDI publisher, it does not matter. she is still small comparted to a government official. much more a cabinet secretary.

Again, I respect your opinion if that’s how you see it. I, however, have a different idea on that matter and it didn’t just come out of thin air.

***if bloggers and people are afraid to say their minds, where then are the safeguards, and in the major scheme of things, safeguards to democracy are we saying?

who’s saying we can not speak our minds? we can but we should do it responsibly and with due consideration of truth, justice and the people we’re at opposite ends of the table with.

***the truth is, cabral mnight not be colluding to corruption (and ella nevber said she was in the first place) butwas caught red-handed on NOT doing her job.

Here are some photo captions in Ella’s blog:

- Marami pang pabubulukin
- Sige, ideretso ‘nyo ulit ‘yan sa DSWD warehouse. Para AMAG naman ang abutin ng biskwit… at sapot ng gagamba.
- Do you mean “do not delay ang dati nang delayed”
- Sabay tatahiin na ang sako. O di ba, parang asong tinapunan ng buto ang mga nasalanta?
- Relief goods na ayaw yata ibigay sa mga nasalanta. Halatang-halata.

Her Conclusion:
Susulpot din siguro ang laman ng mga mahiwagang kahon at mapapasakamay din ng mga tao…sa ARAW NG ELEKSYON.

****since you caution on taking responsibility, don’t you think making this issue comparative to racism irresponsible?

I don’t understand why you’re pushing this.

Again, i reiterate (that’s redundancy there since I have answered you on this several times):

In urban parlance nowadays, being “racist” can translate to being biased against a group of people or promoting bias by a certain group on another community.

Note that I mentioned using quotes because I already considered the fact that racism may be boxed as a battle of one race against another alone.

The latter, nonetheless, is still a working analogy. You would not want anyone attacking someone just because he’s a Filipino. You know it’s not right.

In the same manner that bloggers shouldn’t attack Sec. Cabral just because she’s a government official, ergo, “too powerful”.

We also would not want Sec. Cabral attacking any blogger just on the grounds of him being a blogger.

If we but open our eyes, if we but be fair, we can see that Sec. Cabral isn’t attacking the blogging world. She filed a case against Ella. She filed it based on the entries posted on her blogs.

Inciting the whole blogging world and making them see this issue as a government official bullying a blogger just because the aggrieved party has decided to file a libel case sends off the message that bloggers should be invincible.

The title: You’re Not in Kindergarten, So Stop Bullying and the content:

This is the day a miniscule blogger was picked on by a pea-size brained Philippine government official. A blogger named Ella of Blog ni Ella is now facing libel charges from an article about those “rotting” merchandise inside the DSWD warehouses.

… encapsulates that very premise.

***the same way as it is free expression vs. suppressing it.

Free expression doesn’t translate to freedom sans culpability.

Filing a libel case isn’t tantamount to suppression of another person’s freedom. On the contrary, it is actually an act of recognizing that a person has the right to be heard in court. It is an act surrendering the desire to take matters into one’s own hands and recognizing a higher authority who can weigh the merits of both sides.

The verdict can go both ways, you know. Just because she has filed a case doesn’t mean she’ll automatically win.

What’s important is where Ella has decided to take her suspicions about DSWD’s intention directly to the people (“Susulpot din siguro ang laman ng mga mahiwagang kahon at mapapasakamay din ng mga tao…sa ARAW NG ELEKSYON.”), Sec. Cabral chose to let the matter be discussed in the proper forum.

Let us let justice take its course.

but thank you for the links, whatever they are, but i certainly don’t need them.

i am not trying to hurl insults. i’m sorry if you are as sensitive as sec. cabral, clearly i was trying to make a point across. and indeed it did.

but on second thoughts, why can’t you at least make up a fictitious email address so at least i am discussing with a somehow legitimate person with a face rather than an anonymous one. why hide?

the truth is, cabral mnight not be colluding to corruption (and ella nevber said she was in the first place) butwas caught red-handed on NOT doing her job.

since you caution on taking responsibility, don’t you think making this issue comparative to racism irresponsible?

and yes, an issue of one blogger is an issue against one blogger when it pertains to someone’s rights to speak. we do not stop anyone from filing libel cases, do we?

and even if ella is the daughter of the PDI publisher, it does not matter. she is still small comparted to a government official. much more a cabinet secretary.

if you think a cabinet secretary is on tyhe same level as ella, again you need to requantify your terms because clearly you are not only mistaken but out of touch with the realities in our government.

taking on the same “responsibility” task that you so espoused about, it is my moral responsibility to make sure that my government do its job. because not only I do pay for their salaries, it is also their commitment to me and the whole country.

it is also my moral responsibility and belief to defend people’s rights to free expression. and if these expressions are illegal as you and cabral thought, then so be it, sue. nobody is stopping anybody from suing.

i can call it as a cabinet secretary filing a libel case against a blogger. but i also call it as I see it is, this is a cabinet secretary bullying a blogger.

and yes, this is blogging vs. a government official. the same way as it is free expression vs. suppressing it.

the only way we can responsibly shape the blogosphere is to continue what we have been doing, that is ARGUING. only in discourse would people like you and me, able to sift all the details on issues that we care about, like say, responsibility.

if bloggers and people are afraid to say their minds, where then are the safeguards, and in the major scheme of things, safeguards to democracy are we saying?

peace out to you too.

Now how do you determine intention?

1. Do you base it on the blogger’s action in response to her suspicion?

This PGMA directive sounded suspicious to me then.
***She volunteered then took photos inside the warehouse.

2. Do you base it on the accused and the accuser’s history and connections, if any?

There are aspersions as to Cabral’s being an alter-ego of President Arroyo, in other blogs.

If there’s an allusion to intentions then because of political connection, let’s investigate this further by reading:
http://www.bulatlat.com/news/6-32/6-32-libel.htm :

42 Journalists Face Libel Raps from Arroyo’s Husband
Bandera (six counts, Tulfo’s column “On Target” inilabas noong Jan. 26, May 23 at 27, June 6,8 at 17)

27. Eileen Mangubat (publisher)
28. Beting Laygo Dolor (editor-in-chief)
29. Jimmy Alcantara (associate editor)
30. Raymond Rivera (circulation manager)

The Beting Laygo Dolor :

Of Philippine News Online:
http://philippinenews.com/article.php?id=5380

who started PCIJ (Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism ) alongside Sheila Coronel, Malou Mangahas, Lorna Kalaw-Tirol, Howie Severino and David Celdran.
http://preciousanne.blogspot.com/

Editor- of:
1. Bandera
2. Prime Asia and Pinoy Global Access
http://www.upjournalismclub.org/gallery/photos/suit-of-cards-a-forum-on-libel/
3. Playboy Philippines
http://www.bworldonline.com/Weekender072508/main.php?id=focus1
4. Business World
http://www.grabeh.com/forum/index.php

CONTRIBUTING EDITOR of:
http://www.filglobe.com/files/augpage22forum.pdf

Same Beting Laygo Dolor who released this:
http://philippinenews.com/article.php?id=5380
Donated goods sitting in DSWD warehouse
Published, October 23, 2009

3. Do you base it on the snowballing imputations the blog entry has spawned?

a. Like the blog entries of her fellow bloggers: http://gurlalien.blogspot.com/2010/01/para-kay-ella.html

Wow… di maka get over? bakit kaya? well… ang sabi niya, hindi daw dapat palampasin ang mga ganitong ‘paninira’ sa gobyerno. huh? pero bakit? Alam mo madam, kung di ka talaga guilty, dapat madali kang makaka move-on. eh bakit parang hanggang ngayon eh hurt na hurt ka pa din sa mga nabasa mong blog post? dahil ba the truth hurts? at kahit pa na hindi na ikaw ang mei hawak ng DSWD eh nag file ka pa din ng kaso?

yung mga againsta kay ella, obvious na obvious na related sa DSWD. kung makapag post eh damang dama nila every word.

Whose alias appears here:
http://forums.seo.ph/showthread.php?s=81b8794c5836bf5d9aae7608177a1b3f&t=5216

b. Or the published articles of media men like:
Ramon Tulfo
Whose article: It pays to be honest
http://services.inquirer.net/mobile/10/02/01/html_output/xmlhtml/20100130-250222-xml.html
states:

FORMER SOCIAL WELFARE and now Health Secretary Esperanza Cabral is reportedly using her office to harass a blogger…

The same group also allegedly went to the Parañnaque residence of the Dolor family, as Cabral was reportedly convinced that Ella was a member of that family.

Same Tulfo who curiously appeared here:

42 Journalists kinasuhan ng Libelo

Bandera (six counts, Tulfo’s column “On Target” inilabas noong Jan. 26, May 23 at 27, June 6,8 at 17)
27. Eileen Mangubat (publisher)
28. Beting Laygo Dolor (editor-in-chief)
29. Jimmy Alcantara (associate editor)
30. Raymond Rivera (circulation manager)

http://zumel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14&Itemid=2

As confirmed from this column:
http://tulfo.net/column1.htm