I DISAPPROVE of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Perhaps, no other phrase in history amplifies freedom of expression more poignantly than this famous quote—which, it appears, had been wrongly attributed to Voltaire.
Voltaire, of course, is the pen name of French writer François-Marie Arouet whose writings (at least some of them) during the Age of Enlightenment (a.k.a. Age of Reason) in Europe bordered on the seditious, blasphemous, and sacrilegious.
Many of the ideas we know, hold dear, and adhere to today—democracy, liberty, tolerance, constitutional government, separation of church and state—were borne out of the Age of Enlightenment, hardly fought for by men like Voltaire.
But the words that for centuries had been attributed to Voltaire were actually written by Evelyn Beatrice Hall (a.k.a. S.G, Tallentyre), author of the 1906 book “The Friends of Voltaire,” where the quote first appeared.
According to online Quote Investigator, the book described an incident involving the French philosopher Claude-Adrien Helvétius who in 1758 published a controversial work titled ‘De l’esprit’ (‘On the Mind’).
Voltaire was not impressed with the book, but when it was condemned in the Parlement of Paris and by the Collège de Sorbonne and later burned in public, Voltaire, according to Hall, reacted as follows:
‘What a fuss about an omelette!’ he had exclaimed when he heard of the burning. How abominably unjust to persecute a man for such an airy trifle as that!
‘I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,’ was his attitude now.”
Hall did not attribute the line to Voltaire. It was her interpretation of what Voltaire said, which she reiterated in another publication in 1939.
It isn’t clear how the words came to be attributed to Voltaire, but doesn’t it, at the least, constitute false or wrong information, erroneous reporting, maybe even misinformation or disinformation in today’s age of so-called “fake news,” a term that is erroneous (and a contradiction) because if a report is fake then it is not news and if it is news then it is not fake.
Now, why is this relevant to the topic at hand and the ongoing House hearings on “fake news” and social-media influencers?
Just to be clear, I am not about to stand in defense of purveying false, concocted, malicious, libelous information be it in social media or mainstream media, much less of those who engage in the act. And let’s face it, even mainstream media—here or anywhere else in the world—is at times guilty of what social media influencers are being accused of.
But the House hearings are meant to help Congress enact legislation to address the problem. And we don’t know yet what sort of proposed legislation the House will fashion out of the hearings especially since more important matters such as existing laws on libel (including cyber-liber), rumor-mongering and spreading false information (Presidential Decree No, 90, relevant provisions of the Revised Penal Code, Cybercrime Act, among others) are not being discussed.
Martial-law-era PD 90, for example, is quite direct, clear and explicit: “Any person who shall offer, publish, distribute, circulate and spread rumors, false news and information and gossip, or cause the publication, distribution, circulation or spreading of the same, which cause or tend to cause panic, divisive effects among the people, discredit of or distrust for the duly constituted authorities, undermine the stability of the Government and the objectives of the New Society, endanger the public order, or cause damage to the interest or credit of the State shall, upon conviction, be punished by prison correctional.”
But instead of reviewing these laws to find out where the flaws lay, the hearings are becoming a show for some congressmen to flex their power.
This is where caution and prudence must prevail.
In crafting a law meant to regulate social media, in particular, and all media, in general, Congress is walking a thin line between preventing the spread of false information and imposing prior restraint. It must strive to find the balance between freedom of expression and the proliferation of false information. To be sure, spreading false information undermines democracy just as prior restraint does.
And we are not wanting either on jurisprudence that can guide Congress.
One good example was the case of the Garci tapes during the presidency of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
The decision, penned by then Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, is a treatise on prior restraint and freedom of expression. It sets the parameters of freedom of expression and defines when and how prior restraint is committed, which we will discuss at length in our next piece.
