It’s the second week of the online rage between Senator Tito Sotto and his critics about the legislator’s ‘plagiarism’ that sabotage his stand against the RH Bill.
Without any intention of sounding like a sage on this matter, parang yung tagline ng isang brand ng beer, gawin nating light. Pardon the code-switching and please note the citations.
You’ve heard about the issue many times over — from Sotto’s camp, from the American blogger Sarah Pope, and from the netizens who freely attacked the senator and his ‘plagiarism’.
Who’s the true victim?
Sen. Sotto claimed that he is the first senator of this country who became a victim of cyber-bullying. I beg to disagree. As a social network hopper, his fellow senators had been bullied many times over online, the thing is, they just don’t care. Alam nila yung salitang deadma. Mga deadmatologist na senador.
Sen. Sotto fired back to these online attacks because he still firmly believes that he committed no crime. His staff admitted the act of plagiarizing contents of a blog but because they know the act is not considered a crime in the Philippines, they thought it’s all okay.
What about you? Do you think it’s okay?
Who copied what from whom?
I searched online and bumped into this mighty article posted on the manilatimes.net which was written by writer/editor Frank Hilario and was first published on his blog creattitudesonline.blogspot.com. This article explains that it was Sarah Pope who plagiarized and not Sen. Sotto. If you want to know why, just click the link ’cause I won’t be copying and pasting here the entire article.
The ignored argument of RH Bill
The various points made by the public online about Sen. Sotto’s plagiarism killed his opposition on the RH Bill. Ninakaw ang airtime ng argument ni Sen. Sotto tungkol sa RH Bill. ‘That plagiarism issue is a thief!’, ang dapat isigaw ng argumento ni Sotto.
The attack of the people exercising freedom of expression
Our rights on the freedom of expression back up our actions whether online or offline. Say on your Facebook or Twitter account, you can post whatever you want because that’s your personal space. But there exist two important things: online etiquette and delete button.
Sometimes we say things we don’t really mean or we’re not fully in knowledge of. The problem is, people have different interpretations and at times, they may be in contrast of what we intend to convey.
Ang freedom of expression ay masyadong naaabuso ng mga taong nakakakuha ng satisfaction at affirmation sa paninira ng ibang tao. Cyber-bullying is way too ugly. That I’m fully aware of. Para yang uling. Kapag hinipan mo nang hinipan, lalong magbabaga. Pag hinayaan mo lang, mag-iinit sya for some time pero lalamig din ng kusa.
Sen. Sotto was quoted saying this: “Blogger lang ‘yon”, pertaining to Sarah Pope. As a blogger myself, medyo may konting discrimination sa puntong yon. Aren’t we credible sources of information? But that’s not the issue here so I won’t brag about why I think he shouldn’t have said that. Then again, there’s freedom of expression.
Sen. Sotto refused to apologize for committing plagiarism. I bet he won’t even dare say sorry to Sarah Pope because he did not steal anything from the blogger. Kasi nga si Natasha Campbell-McBride nga naman daw ang source ng staff nya.
Umiyak si Sotto. Naging ‘madrama’ yung privileged speech nya. That was enough reason for his critics to feast on. But then this plagiarism issue raised flag for his critics to hit him more, big time.
Sarah Pope herself has got a little explaining to do but I don’t like giving her the spotlight. The netizens? Oh, we can say all our blah blahs for as long as we like and the best thing about that is we don’t get punished.
Plagiarism? We all commit the act at one or too many points in our life. But we don’t feel like criminals because there’s no law saying it’s a crime, at least here in the Philippines. BUT NOBODY says it’s a good thing either. What’s difficult in saying the brilliant work is not yours?
I hope it all ends here. Or should have ended yesterday when Sen. Sotto asked the body to remove that controversial chunk of plagiarized ‘research work’. I wonder what’s left in the journal?
Oh, but before we let the issue die down, who do you think should be sorry for all these pandemonium? Say your piece. After all, there’s freedom of expression.