Inquirer editor John Nery asks himself a simple question in his column today, Assault on press freedom? Q and A:
“If the cyberlibel case [against Maria Ressa] was presumed regular, why is it an assault on press freedom?”
You’d think Nery would take this opportunity to articulate a really precise answer to this question to clarify all the confusion surrounding Ressa’s “assault on press freedom” circus. But no.
Here is his CONVOLUTED answer:
It relies on an extreme legal strategy that imperils everyone who posts online or on social media. In that sense, it is an assault not only on the freedom of the press but on freedom of expression itself. But the case must also be understood as part of a pattern: It is only one of nine cases filed against Rappler, with more investigations under way. Only those who refuse to see will fail to recognize the orchestrated character of the attacks on Rappler — and thus on a free press.
Huh??
It’s a baldly dishonest answer. For one thing consider how he describes those who disagree with his point of view whom he lumps under the label “Those who refuse to see”.
This is an unfounded judgemental label that altogether shuts down any further debate on the matter as far as Nery and the chi chi members of his clique’s points of view are concerned.
Mr Nery should apply a bit of humility to his writing. The fact is, there are many who put forth WELL-ARTICULATED arguments that he and his ilk REFUSE to consider. It’s an irony that flies way above their pointed heads.