Credibility in Blogging
Edit- Added January 14
If you came here because of an entry written by Manuel Viloria in “Credibility in Blogging”, let me make it clear. I don’t give a hoot if I have credibility or not. You can have it, Manuel Viloria. I can stop blogging today and still continue on with my goals in life. (edit on January 16, 2009 – Watch the Media in Focus episode on de la paz and Blogging, as I talk more about Credibility in Blogging.)
Manuel Viloria, author of that entry, Obliterated and “Credibility in Blogging” should offer a disclosure as well. (edit- January 17, 2009- Manuel Viloria and I discussed things personally and I felt he need not disclose anything if there is nothing to disclose. There is no feud. We agree to disagree. )
And now the main entry….
If I am not mistaken, I believe this is the first libel case filed against a blogger because of their blog entry. Another blogger survived a libel case but it was not about an entry he wrote but as the webhost of a libelous entry. The latter case was dismissed.
Now I am not a lawyer but let’s define libel.
For an imputation then to be libelous, the following requisites must concur: (a) it must be defamatory; (b) it must be malicious; (c) it must be given publicity; and (d) the victim must be identifiable.
Does your blog fit those requisites?
A link baiter insinuated that I edited an adjective to avoid defamation charges. Let me refer to this person as Mr. Link Baiter. Why? A certain Baycas posted comments in my blog entry that a Mr. Link Baiter was talking about me. Baycas made sure I read the entry by commenting twice. I went to Mr. Link Baiter’s site and was about to comment but noticed that the comments section was closed. ( Update: Read one of the defenses against libel — the right to reply at the Jester in Exile’s The Right to Bitch…) Now, how did Baycas, the anonymous commenter know it was my blog when no hyperlink of my site was on that entry.
Oh well, excuse me, Mr. Link Baiter, this is my blog and I have every right to edit and change adjectives as I deem fit without changing the essence of the sentence. (Mr. Link Baiter does not deserve a link love but I am sure an anonymous commenter will soon post the link in your blog.) I have also every right to edit, delete and filter comments as I please.
Yes, I changed “equally dysfunctional” to “Peacemaker Appointee” to show the irony of the situation as the DAR Chief looked on as his son beat up the kid and the father. I found out the DAR chief was a Peacemaker appointee only the following day so I thought it was an even better description. I also forgot to edit my Multiply but who cares? Mr. Link Baiter took it the wrong way. Taken alone, the “equally dysfunctional” sounds a lot bolder than the “Peacemaker Appointee” but the context of my sentence did not change.
The edited sentence is as good as the original.
I want to hear the mayor’s side and why his father (a Peacemaker appointee) looked the other way. I’d like to know why the mayor should not be charged for violating the RA 7610, the anti-child abuse law.
Original sentence was:
I want to hear the mayor’s side and why his equally dysfunctional father looked the other way. I’d like to know why the mayor should not be charged for violating the RA 7610, the anti-child abuse law.
(Edit:Placed original sentence for comparison. Incidentally, Valley Golf Club suspended DAR Chief’s membership for two years because he “was held liable for allegedly allowing the actions of his two sons” Those people who love to nitpick on my usage of words above and how they claim my stand is softened and so with my “pre-judgment” , really now, the Valley Golf findings affirm that the DAR chief just looked on. It’s what you call a mother’s gut feeling. So nitpick all you want, the truth will come out in the end.)
Whether I changed a word or not, my stand remains. It never changed.
I condemn the action taken on the 14 year old boy trying to defend a father.
I condemn the abuse of authority.
On a final note, Mr. Link Baiter needs to read more on defamatory imputation before judging my blog entry.
Philippine law also presumes every defamatory imputation to be malicious, even if true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown (Article 254 of the Revised Penal Code). Malice exists when there is an intentional doing of a wrongful act without just cause.
But let’s see how the libel suit against Bambee prospers. This will surely set a precedent case for libel and blogging.
My husband has more to say about the libel suit in his entry The Pangandaman Libel Suit Against Bambee and here’s an interesting read on one of the defenses against libel — the right to reply at the Jester in Exile’s The Right to Bitch…
Valley Golf expels Dela Paz, suspends Pangandaman Sr
The Valley Golf Findings are relevant. As reported by Valley Golf expels Dela Paz, suspends Pangandaman Sr:
1. The golf course’s board of directors sanctioned Dela Paz for “disorderly behavior” when he instigated the brawl with Masiu town Mayor Nasser Pangandaman Jr., his brother Mohammed Hussein and their bodyguards.
2. The Valley Golf officials banned non-members Nasser Jr. and Hussein for “unruly behavior” inside the golf course.
3. Pangandaman Sr., a member of the golf club, was held liable for allegedly allowing the actions of his two sons.
Valley Golf’s resolution seems fair. Right now, I’d like to see government take the same decisive actions.
Edit January 12, 2009- Dela Paz says Valley Golf decision unfair
“It’s too unfair. We were expelled. What will be the future of my 14-year old? What will happen to his golfing career? They (Pangandamans) have a lot to pay to golf courses, we don’t have that much money. Valley’s decision is too unfair, they should’ve been objective in their investigation,” dela Paz told ABS-CBN’s “Umagang Kay Ganda.”
“What they did to us was very vindictive, they made it appear that they’re only believing the testimony of the other side, which is nothing but lies,” he added.