Senator Vicente “Tito” Sotto isn’t really showing us much political mettle. Or acumen. After being accused of plagiarizing parts of his speech, the Senator, instead of owning up to his lack of authorship over those portions, at first decided to deny that the material had been lifted from that first, pin-pointed source. His defense was, it had been extracted from some other author, and so that meant (perhaps to his defense team) that his use of the material became defensible.
The criticism from the online community didn’t stop there, and became so vocal that the Senator was forced to go back on to the parliamentary floor and wail. “I am a victim,” cried the Senator, and he denounced the cyber-bullying he was experiencing. But if this is his way of silencing his critics, then his political advisers might need some growing up into the 21st century.
Whining that he has been made a victim in the cyber world by fake online account holders, unknown netizens, and abortion activists out to get him for his stance on the reproductive health bill won’t win Tito Sotto sympathizers, considering his stature as a nationally elected official with a television show beamed nationwide to millions of adoring fans who voted him into office, never mind his lack of political credentials. Or astuteness, as we now see. Sotto is simply too powerful a figure to be a legitimate victim.
Next, his strategy of belittling his critics also failed to take into account legitimate criticism from those who take authorship seriously. After all, there is that small part of the population for whom the written word is precious, for whom the original expression of ideas is the holy grail. Unfortunately, that small population also has by and large a lock on the journalism world.
You think the press was happy when the Senator refused to apologize for lifting material? That strikes a blow right into what journalists and other writers hold most precious and dear - attribution of work that they sweated and was probably paid only a pittance for. Adding insult to injury might be the best way to describe this strategy.
The unrepentant Senator goes on to say that what he did was not a crime. There is no law prohibiting what he did. There was no economic injury to the lifted source. Therefore there was no copyright infringement. The message we’re supposed to get is, no crime, no foul. But that isn’t exactly what the heart of the matter here is. Who cares if it was or wasn’t a crime? The point is, you didn’t write it.
His advisers probably don’t want to tell him that there is such a thing as ‘moral rights’, which by the way includes the right to always be identified as the author of original work. It’s such a fundamental right, that an author cannot even legally agree to give up and waive his right to be identified as the author, and give it to someone else to claim as his.
If the Senator had even paid the littlest form of respect to this basic tenet, apologized for an oversight, smiled and said sorry, then maybe he would have been forgiven, and the incident allowed to lapse into a small footnote. But the Senator doesn’t stop at that. He goes on to propose his brilliant solution to address his quandary: Regulate his victimizers! Blogging should be controlled! The internet should be patrolled!
Not very smart, Senator. That’s probably the best proposal you could have made, if you wanted to alienate the online community and make them mortal enemies. I mean, has no one in your staff attempted to explain how important bloggers have become, to the extent that there are now nationwide blogging awards, ad campaigns where bloggers are selected to be endorsers and spokespersons, and bloggers get dinner invitations to the U.S. embassy for dinner with the Ambassador? Heck, Bryanboy is now a judge at America’s Next Top Model, and he’s “just” a blogger.
It’s been blunder after blunder, Senator. Let’s see if you can find your way out of this morass.