There's A Huge Difference Between Being Critical About President Duterte And Inciting Sedition
Once again, thanks to Thinking Pinoy for this image
You have the right to be critical or dislike President Duterte. Some people don't like him because he does have his temper and mouth problems. This is a democracy. Yet another issue that should be raised is this one: there's a huge difference between being critical about President Duterte and inciting sedition to its readers.
What does it mean to be critical about President Duterte
To be critical about President Duterte means to question his actions without necessarily planning to overthrow him. It's like how Get Real Philippines was critical about Noynoy Aquino's administration but did it urge any revolution? Instead, what GRP did was to simply point out the mistakes done during the Noynoying years. It was critical of Noynoy but it didn't otherwise incite sedition. It simply stuck to the facts about Noynoy's incompetence without otherwise falsely accusing him. It's highly possible that they were hoping he would listen to good advice but he failed to do so.
Okay, let's say I don't support President Duterte. If I'm going to be critical without otherwise inciting sedition I could raise some issues. I could talk about his plan to revise the high school Math curriculum or his proposal to end K+12. I could also talk about his lack of etiquette. I'm only critical of his decisions yet I may be offering him advice on what to do. Some people don't like Duterte for some reason but they approve of some things he did. A good example is somebody may have preferred Grace Poe Llamanzares over him while approving some things the latter did like the no smoking in public policy or the curfew for minors. They can approve of his plan to liberate the economy while they may be critical about the parliamentary and federal system. They will raise questions without otherwise seeking to overthrow the administration.
The difference between being critical and inciting sedition
Inciting sedition is a different issue. What Leila Dilemma did is going beyond being critical. It's proper to raise issues about extrajudicial killings since there are guidelines to follow. What she did was set up bogus witnesses in a desperate attempt to oust President Duterte. If all she did was criticize him for his faults without setting up bogus witnesses then that wouldn't tantamount to sedition. But what she did is an act of sedition. This is very different from the stupidity done by Leah Navarro, Cynthia Patay and Agot Isidro. Did Isidro falsely accuse President Duterte? No. She simply called him a psychopath.
What Cocoy Dayao and his network is doing is an abuse of free speech. They can't appeal to democracy to what they did. What the sites like Pinoy Ako Blog (PNoy Ako Blog), Change Scamming, Silent No More PH, Madam Claudia, Backroom Politics and the other related yellow sites are doing is not just being critical of President Duterte. They are already falsely accusing him with little or no evidence. What evidence do they have that President Duterte is behind all the EJKs that they are accusing him of? What evidence is there that Paolo Duterte is guilty of all the crimes they are accusing him of? The same may also go for Philippine Daily Inquirer, Crapper and ABiaS-CBN.
Dayao and his friends can't appeal to democracy to get away with that they did. There's freedom of speech but there's also restriction to it. Unfortunately, these guys may think democracy equals a dysfunctional sense of freedom. Just because there's freedom of speech doesn't mean you have the right to use it to destroy someone's life. That's what Dayao and his network are ignoring in their crime of cyber-sedition.