Freedom of expression or free speech has always been the "bedrock principle" of a functioning democracy. In fact, it is a preferred right that stands on a higher plain than most substantive economic rights recognized by law.

That it should be at the top of the hierarchy certainly goes without saying. Throughout history, it is the one right that is immediately crushed or stifled by any dictatorial regime. Why? Because allowing people to freely articulate or express their sentiments can result in the formation of certain ideas that may be deleterious to the interests of the powers that be. This eventually could lead into collective action that can topple an establishment.

I remember a friend of an uncle who, during martial law, was arrested by the constabulary for uttering a joke inside the University of the Philippines campus.

After his class, he nonchalantly shouted “Panahon na,” then whispered to his friends, “ng rambutan!” The guy went to prison for three months and subsequently went underground after his release. When Cory became President, he was appointed to some office and allegedly stole money considering the cases filed against him.

Anyway, our civilization is replete with stories of people getting killed or made to suffer an ordeal simply because they could not shut their mouths up. Rizal, for one, would not have probably been gunned down in a firing squad if he were not critical of Spanish authorities. The same thing in fact can be said about our Lord Jesus Christ, his only sin being telling the truth, much to the chagrin of Jewish and Roman authorities.

This is why the Supreme Court has always accorded individuals the right to say or utter anything they want to sans prior restraint or fear of any subsequent punishment. Regardless of their political or even religious beliefs, they are allowed to publish their sentiments whether good or bad and at the same time have access to critical information of public concern.

Right now, almost all forms of speech are protected. Some very few exceptions that come to mind would be libel or perhaps inciting to sedition or more specifically, the illegal act of egging people to resist or rebel against the government in power.

Interestingly though, most of the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court were rendered at the time when there was no social media yet and when traditional media was still the sole gatekeeper.

With their respective code of ethics, these radio and television stations, as well as newspapers publications were responsible enough not to share defamatory articles or false narratives to the public.

Then, the internet came and suddenly everyone has a voice and a platform through which he can share and peddle anything. As in anything including child pornography or explicit terroristic activities or damaging untruthful statements.

By the way, just so everyone knows, fake news, unless it is libelous or causes public disturbance remains part of protected speech. So, it is not an actionable wrong per se.

With the emergence of the internet, the Supreme Court and Congress at some point would have to recalibrate their respective positions as regards how this right to free speech or freedom of the press should be regulated.

Indeed, social media has made us realize that while the right to say anything is what’s good about democracy, it may also be what’s bad about it. But it is what it is. And then some, maybe.