ON POLITICAL VIEWS/POLITICAL THEORIES
http://www.pcij.org/blog/ (a different take on local politics)
http://www.michaelmoore.com/ (liberal)

What did I feel when I viewed these websites?

We Tell it Like It Is. No Matter Who. No Matter What.
This is that tagline that caught my interest the first time I visited PCIJ website. It was during the issue of Garci Tape that I discovered this interesting website. The writers hold on to the Edward Bulwer-Lytton’s “The pen is mightier than the sword”, and so they bravely “attack” the government for what they believe is true. I actually admire them on how they express their opinions on the different issues in the society. It seems that they are really concerned on the welfare of the Filipino people. If I remember it right, it was them who first published the transcript of Garci Tape. The website had tackled the issue strongly that it was later hacked.

Honestly, whenever I read negative write-ups about the government, whether true or not, I can’t help but get bothered and be afraid because politicians might take advantage of the situation for their own benefits. That would mean unstable economy, street demonstrations, high inflation rates, and so on. I just wish that what they are fighting for will not lead to economic catastrophe that will surely add burden to ordinary Filipinos.

What does the online literature say about the proliferation of these sites and their possible effects on society?

“Freedom of expression” has been a battle cry during the time of the propaganda movement of Lopez-Jaena. Jose Rizal was even prosecuted because of his writings against the Spaniards. In modern time, many journalists still “eat death threat for their breakfast” because of their exposés. Some were unlucky that their exposés cost them their lives. In fact a recent survey reveals that the Philippines has the highest number of journalists murdered in the line of duty.

Our laws assure of the freedom of access to information and that the people have rights to see a transparent government. This is why we have these political write-ups such as those in PCIJ website that somehow create a big impact in the society. In fact, in Philippine politics, their opinions helped evict our former president from his power. These online forums or blogs have been a source of revelations about the inconsistencies in government transactions and they somehow allow readers to know many information.

In an online article “EchoChamber.com: Is the Net Polarizing U.S. Political Dialogue?”, several ideas have been brought up:
- Flamers actually originated from the Internet who initiate attacks on others with their opposing views.
- Countless discussion forums and political sites can be found nowadays in the Internet catering to partisan and none partisan points of view.
- Ideological journalism is in demand for people who want to read news that are in-depth and not just ordinary news, although “67 percent of Americans prefer getting news from sources that don't have political point of view”.
- People reading something that they only want to read could lead to society whose people see only one side of the issue and disregard other opposing beliefs. People who discuss issues among themselves with their similar opinions could be a threat in society since some forms of extremism could arise and lead to misunderstanding with other groups.
- Objective journalism, that is journalism that does not dwell on one side of the issue, seems to get more readers and advertisers.
- People enjoy partisan media actually due to how the ideas have been presented to them - with all sorts of interesting presentations and with good “actors delivering the speeches”.
- There is nothing wrong in partisan/ideological journalism when it is being presented with facts and not just mere opinions.
- Objective journalism is sometimes considered dry and boring, unlike partisan news which is always considered fun and exciting.
- Ideological sites such as www.nationalreview.com do not only expressed strongly their ideas but also feature a variety of opinions coming from different people.
- Online debates are considered a loud minority. But when people get to know the information being presented, we could always expect that it could affect the points of view of readers and would eventually generate other forms of debates on the issue.

How do the preliminary and finalist theories apply?

ON PRELIMINARY THEORIES
Ethical relativism stresses that there is no universal truth and that what is moral to one may not be moral to another. This percept is eminent in discussion forums that tackle different issues in politics. For instance, we have the “pros” and “cons” in the president’s impeachment case. Ethical absolutism, on the other hand, assures consistent moral standards that will define any action as good or bad. For PCIJ, exposing government anomalies is its business. It upholds its principles, for what it believes in, and report to the public whatever its reporters think is right or wrong. In ethical egoist’s point of view, a person who writes something against or in favor of a politician has other interest. Some can’t help but think, especially those from opposing party, that negative write-ups against someone is actually made to destroy reputation. This is evident during election period when various political issues are brought up by two opposing parties. In the case of PCIJ, I strongly believe, with an altruistic point of view, that its reporters are reliable enough and that they have a clear and strong stand on their opinions which are something that cannot be hindered or influenced by anyone.

ON FINALIST THEORIES
Utilitarianism states that an action that results to happiness is morally right while those actions that hamper happiness is morally bad. Political views or theories tackle big issues that involved politicians. Impeachment, gambling lords or even mistresses are some of the objects of discussions. For pro-administration officials, expose on Garci Tape is somewhat bad. However, for those who brought out the tape, it is just morally right to let the people know things that transpired during the election period. If we are going to consider the precept of Categorical Imperatives, freedom of expression shall be considered good if it adheres to Constitutions and does not violate any law. Political views that can be found in the Internet can only be judged according to the facts and evidences presented. With moral virtue and intellectual virtue, people will be guided to create a stand on current political issues in the society. Man’s intelligence and moral values will help him understand current events and will eventually help him develop his own personal opinion on different matters.

How would I explain these websites to minor (under 18)?

I think that teenagers nowadays are very much aware of what is happening around them. They are more vocal on expressing their opinions on the different issues in society. Perhaps it would not be hard for me to explain those kinds of websites to them. However, I would surely express my personal point of view about those websites and I ought to be more reliable and serious with my statements. I would stress that the contents of those websites do happen in real life and cannot be suppressed. However, with proper values, one could be shielded from possible negative influences of those sites. I will then ask for their opinions about it. Should they find it confusing, especially on the political issues, I will try my best to tell everything that I know regarding the issues and try to instill good values in everything that I will say.

Assuming it is technically feasible; should there be limits to free expression on the Internet?

I believe that there should be limitations to free expression on the Internet. I see the Web as a wall where everyone freely posts or writes anything under the sun. More often than not, the wall serves as a medium for some who like to express their ideas about certain issues. However, everyone can’t help but look at the wall. Thus, people who are not supposed to see it and people who, in the first place, do not have business on the writings on the wall, are being affected or sometimes irritated by what they see. Somehow, the Internet should be regulated to ensure that particular information shall be available only to intended audiences. For instance, pornography should not be accessible to minors and information dissemination that promotes violence should be stopped. Misleading information and those that lack credibility should be rectified. On the other hand, limitations to free expression should not cross the line where people’s constitutional rights are violated. People ought to know any information that would be beneficial them.

References:

Albacea, E. A., Payongayong, T. T, Pinpin, A. V. (2003). Computer Ethics. UPOU.

EchoChamber.com: Is the Net Polarizing U.S. Political Dialogue?
Retrieved September 9, 2005 from http://ojr.org/ojr/glaser/1082521278.php