In the Philippines, we turn to bayanihan, a centuries-long tradition of helping hand-in-hand whenever we are struck by a calamity. Collectively, our energies became much focused on social media — a platform where we can exercise both free speech and social distancing. For one, free speech has proven itself a useful tool in garnering donations. It allowed participation in fund drives; the biggest one arguably being the one supported by The Office of The Vice President, which has amassed more than PHP 50 million.  This allowed for the purchase of hundreds of thousands of Personal Protective Equipment (PPEs) sets, as well as thousands of packed food meals for frontliners. Much of our stranded kababayans were also given help thanks to frequent shares on Facebook Groups, which enabled local communities to reach out to them. Tweaks and changes on the Enhanced Community Quarantine have also been put to place thanks to frequent trends in social media, especially the hashtag, #MassTesting. Local Government Units were also able to exchange successful campaigns such as mobile palengkes, lifting store window hours, alternate grocery schedules, and many more through the clamour of their constituents.

Free speech however can be seen as a double-edged sword, with the current stay-at-home rallies in the US as an example. Shocking as it may seem, hundreds of Americans in different states are flocking to the streets without any protective gear, disobeying stay-at-home orders and leaving themselves vulnerable to the highly contagious disease. Protesters in Michigan even resorted to blocking an ambulance on its way to the hospital. Ultimately, this stems from the fear of losing income and infringement of rights. Although free speech sets the stage for further discussion, it can also create a rift between two opposing forces — in this instance, the protesters and the local government. 

In a paper by American philosopher and professor of Jurisprudence at the University of Chicago Law School Brian Leiter (2016), he argues that free speech "can be benign or harmful, constructive, or pernicious" depending on usage. He further explains that free speech shouldn't be treated as an inherently good thing, and that not all speech equally holds an "intrinsic value". 

The line between right and wrong usage of freedom of speech is truly a blurred one. But ultimately, it is not put in place simply to give bigots a chance to express their ideas. Rather, it is an opportunity to challenge outdated ideas by laying down facts and using moral reasoning. Unfortunately, censorship, when used in this context, doesn’t allow room for further explanation and justification — all it does is suppress an idea.

On the other hand, abuse of free speech does not go unchecked either as our laws ensure that this right is responsibly exercised. Atty. Legarda further explains:

“Freedom of speech is balanced by other articles in the Bill of Rights. You cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property ‘without due process of law,’ – so you can lose your liberty – but there has to be some trial. You have the right to be secure in your homes but, you can be searched or arrested should a warrant be issued. A right of privacy is protected for communication and correspondence – but this right to privacy can be lifted 'upon lawful order of the court'.”

And although we have extensive guidelines on the lawfulness of free speech, the responsibility ultimately boils down to us, to gatekeep ourselves from spreading false information as well as filter those that we ingest from different sources, more importantly, online.

As a reminder for everyone, Atty. Legarda shares: “Do not lie. Do not create panic. Do not post any 'information' which you have not checked against credible sources.”

Read also: Fighting COVID-19 In The Philippines: The Leaders Of Makati Medical Center And The Medical City Speak Out