PDA

View Full Version : Sotto immune from plagiarism raps, top aide says



gameface_one
08-18-2012, 08:20 PM
Sotto immune from plagiarism raps, top aide says

by RG Cruz, ABS-CBN News
Posted at 08/17/2012 5:44 PM | Updated as of 08/18/2012 12:15 PM


Sotto not covered by copyright rules, lawyer claims

MANILA, Philippines - The chief of staff of Senate Majority Leader Vicente Sotto on Friday said they committed no crime in lifting portions of his anti-reproductive health (RH) bill speech at the Senate from the web.

Atty. Hector Villacorta also feels that blogger Sarah Pope of thehealthyeconomist.com is just reacting after her sensitivities were offended.

Villacorta claimed that the Internet is public domain, that governments are exempted from copyright rules, while Sotto himself enjoys parliamentary immunity as a legislator.

Villacorta told ABS-CBN News Sotto used research for his speech since he is not a doctor.

"Nagtatampo pala sila pag naqu-quote sila. Blog site is public domain, you should be open to be quoted from all over the world. What law did we violate only her sensitivity was.* Because there is no crime, we used information from public domain they're making issue of the way it was quoted."

"The rule of copyright gives government a chance to use some of materials. There's principle in law if there's a crime there should be a law punishing it. Was she commercially injured? Wala naman eh. No crime, no law violated."

Villacorta was also asked to comment on claims by journalist and blogger Raissa Robles that Sotto may have also copied from 5 bloggers and one United Nations briefer.

'Anyone can use blogs'

"Blogs are public domain. Anybody can use it [sic]. Government is exempted from the copyright rule. As a general principle,* you cannot withhold information from government," he said.

Villacorta said Sotto's speech and Pope's work quoted a book by Dr. Natasha McBride on the side effects of* birth control pills.

He said Pope can sue Sotto in the US if the Philippines has a treaty with the US on intellectual property.

Asked how Sotto is taking the controversy over the alleged plagiarism, Villacorta said, "he is smiling and napapailing because content of speech being sidetracked."

"Bloggers, beware what you put out on the web. You should not cry if used by the web," he claimed.

Caught via Google search

However, Alfredo Melgar, a blogger who pointed out the likeness of Pope's 2011 blog port to Sotto;s privilege speech, argued that it's how Pope's blog was used, and not the fact that it was used, that spells the diffrence.

“Totoong pwedeng gumamit ng impormasyon, pero yung paraan ng paggamit ng info katulad ng ginawa nila na pangungusap ni Sarah Pope ginamit, at 'di sinabi na kay Sarah Pope," he explained.

Melgar pointed out that Sotto's office still hasn't owned up to plagiarizing the piece, but merely stressed that they quoted from the same book Pope referred to in her blog.

Melgar said Pope herself said the lifted parts in Sotto's speech was hers and not from her reference book.

He said Google search was key to how he caught the copied content.

He said that after Sotto made his emotional speech against birth control, he was drawn to the technical terms Sotto used.

Those technical words are what he keyed in to Google search and which led to Pope’s blog.

Melgar said 8 sentences from Pope's blog were in Sotto's speech.

gameface_one
08-18-2012, 08:28 PM
Sotto plagiarized second RH speech, too?

ABS-CBNnews.com
Posted at 08/17/2012 2:52 PM | Updated as of 08/17/2012 4:27 PM


MANILA, Philippines – It seems that the issue of plagiarism involving Senator Tito Sotto has yet to die down, following claims made by a number of Filipinos that parts of his second speech were lifted from online sources.

Among them are Filipino novelist Miguel Syjuco, who said on his Facebook page that Sotto’s office “lifted, verbatim, from three sources easily found online.”

Syjuco, who is based in Canada, won the 2008 Man Asian Literary Prize. He also posted some passages in Sotto’s speech which he claims were copied from others.

Here are the said passages, as mentioned by Syjuco:

1.

Sotto’s speech:

Sanger was so intent on reducing family size that she seemed to not stop even at abortion. Many believe that under the right circumstances, Sanger would have condoned infanticide. Indeed she wrote in her book Woman and the New Race: “The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” This comes from the woman who formed the philosophical base for IPPF.”

But there was even a darker side to Margaret Sanger: a side that IPPF people try to cover up or explain away. That was her belief in “eugenics.” Eugenics is defined as “the application of the laws of hereditary to physical and mental improvement, especially of the human race.” To Sanger this meant the systematic elimination (through birth control, including abortion) of all those people she and her cohorts considered to be of “dysgenic stock” in order to create a race of superior intellectuals.”

From a 2008 article titled “Re-Imagining Life and Family” by Marlon C. Ramirez:

Sanger was so intent on reducing family size that she seemed to not stop even at abortion. Many believe that, under the right circumstances, Sanger would have condoned infanticide. Indeed, she wrote in her book “Woman And the New Race: “The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” This comes from the woman who formed the philosophical base for Planned Parenthood. You can also see that her interest in birth control was not just due to some humane concern for health of women (which birth control doesn’t help anyway), but was driven in part by her desire to encourage women to engage in sex without having children.

But there was another side of Margaret Sanger; a side that Planned Parenthood people try to cover up or explain away. That was her belief in eugenics. Eugenics is defined as “the application of the laws of heredity to physical and mental improvement, especially of the human race.” To Sanger this meant the systematic elimination (through birth control, including abortion) of all those people she and her cohorts considered to be of “dysgenic stock” in order to create a race of superior intellectuals.

2.

Sotto’s speech:

The two activists met in December of 1936 when Sanger traveled to India to speak with Gandhi about birth control, population and the plight of women in India. At that time, Sanger staunchly advocated the global use of artificial contraceptives and, in order to make the acceptance of such contraceptives easier to the Indian populace, sought to make Gandhi an ally.

Despite the fact that the movement was gaining popularity in a society with a serious poverty crisis, Gandhi was an outspoken critic of artificial birth control. His general attitude was that “Persons who use contraceptives will never learn the value of self-restraint. They will not need it. Self-indulgence with contraceptives may prevent the coming of children but will sap the vitality of both men and women, perhaps more of men than of women. It is unmanly to refuse battle with the devil.”

From a 2010 blog post titled “Gandhi’s birth control of choice” by Janice:*

The two activists met in 1936 when Sanger traveled to India to speak with Gandhi about birth control. By that time Sanger was advocating internationally for artificial contraceptives and sought to make Gandhi an ally.

Despite the fact that the movement was gaining popularity in a society with a serious poverty crisis, Gandhi was an outspoken critic of artificial birth control. His general attitude was that

“Persons who use contraceptives will never learn the value of self-restraint. They will not need it. Self-indulgence with contraceptives may prevent the coming of children but will sap the vitality of both men and women, perhaps more of men than of women. It is unmanly to refuse battle with the devil.”

3.

Sotto’s speech:

A study undertaken by Raymond Pearl, a JohnHopkins professor and noted authority on this matter, wrote: “Those who practice contraception as part of their sex life, by their own admission, resort to criminally induced abortions about three times as often proportionately as do their comparable non-contraceptor contemporaries.” Also in a report prepared for the Royal Commission on Population in Great Britain found that the incidence of induced abortion as a percentage of all pregnancies was nine times higher for women using contraceptives than for women not using birth control.

From a 2010 blog post titled “Case Study: The Use of Contraceptives Lowers the Number of Abortions:”*

In 1939 Raymond Pearl, a Johns Hopkins professor and noted authority, wrote: “Those who practice contraception as part of their sex life, by their own admission, resort to criminally induced abortions about three times as often proportionately as do their comparable non-contraceptor contemporaries.”

In Great Britain, in 2949, a report prepared for the Royal Commission on Population found that the incidence of induced abortion as a percentage of all pregnancies was nine times higher for women using contraceptives than for women not using birth control.

Journalist Raissa Robles, a blogger for ABS-CBNnews.com, noted that a total of five instances of plagiarism were found in Sotto’s second RH speech, citing observations made by Syjuco and Internet user Vincent Bautista.

“Perhaps Senator Sotto did not mean to copy and paste. Perhaps an aide did this for him. Or perhaps someone else fed it to him and he trusted the source completely. Or perhaps one of the bloggers was even his friend.

“However, all those copied words became Senator Sotto’s very own when they were officially entered into Senate records,” Robles wrote.

Sotto’s chief of staff reacts

In a text message to ABS-CBNnews.com on Friday, Sotto’s chief of staff, Atty. Hector Villacorta, said "I can't comment yet without meeting my staff."

US blog first plagiarized

On Thursday, Villacorta admitted that they copied the work of an American blogger in the lawmaker’s turno en contra speech on the RH bill.

Villacorta has posted a message on the Facebook page of blogger Sarah Pope, saying that it was Sotto’s staff who lifted the content of her work without the proper attribution.

Earlier, Sotto denied plagiarizing*parts of his RH bill speech.

Joescoundrel
08-28-2012, 12:39 PM
The utter stupidity of the people we elected into the Senate is truly mind-blowing. If there was ever a case for not having a democracy, the election of Tito Sotto and his ilk would be it.

Sam Miguel
09-06-2012, 08:38 AM
Sotto does it again, channels Robert F. Kennedy in Filipino
By Norman Bordadora
Philippine Daily Inquirer
12:10 am | Thursday, September 6th, 2012 Share on facebook_likeShare 327
Senate Majority Leader Vicente Sotto. INQUIRER FILE PHOTO

Did Robert F. Kennedy know how to speak Filipino?

This appears to be the gist of Senate Majority Leader Vicente Sotto III’s defense amid new allegations of plagiarism after he delivered the fourth and last part of his “turno en contra” speech against the reproductive health bill.

It took bloggers less than two hours to find out that Sotto did it again.

A tweet from a certain Michel Eldiy at 5:30 p.m., more than an hour after the Sotto speech, triggered online discussions on the supposed intellectual dishonesty of the senator.

“Not true that last part of Sotto’s speech is original. See Day of Affirmation speech of Robert Kennedy in 1966 in South Africa,” said Eldiy, who goes by the Twitter handle, “ChiliMedley.”

She then tweeted a link to the Kennedy speech and later compared it with the speech of Sotto.

Sought for comment, the senator said: “It was texted to me by a friend.

“I found the idea good. I translated it into Tagalog [Filipino]. So what’s the problem?” Sotto told the Philippine Daily Inquirer when asked about his reaction to the fresh accusations.

“Ano? Marunong nang mag-Tagalog si Kennedy? (What now? Does Kennedy now know how to speak in Tagalog)?” he added.

In a separate text message, the senator lamented that proponents of the RH bill were nitpicking.

Answer the issues

“They should just answer (the issues about) funding, population control and abortion,” said Sotto.

The following was Sotto’s conclusion to his lengthy privilege speech against the RH bill:

“Iilan ang magiging dakila sa pagbali ng kasaysayan, subalit bawat isa sa atin ay maaaring kumilos, gaano man kaliit, para ibahin ang takbo ng mga pangyayari. Kapag pinagsama-sama ang ating munting pagkilos, makalilikha tayo ng totalidad na magmamarka sa kabuuan ng kasaysayan ng henerasyong ito. Ang mga hindi-mabilang na iba’t ibang galaw ng katapangan at paninindigan ang humuhubog sa kasaysayan ng sangkatauhan. Tuwing naninindigan tayo para sa isang paniniwala, tuwing kumikilos tayo para mapabuti ang buhay ng iba, tuwing nilalabanan natin ang kawalan ng katarungan, nakalilikha tayo ng maliliit na galaw. Kapag nagkasama-sama ang mumunting galaw na mga ito, bubuo ito ng isang malakas na puwersang kayang magpabagsak maging ng pinakamatatag na dingding ng opresyon.”

According to a post on Twitter, it was an alleged direct translation from a speech of the late US Senator Kennedy in 1966:

“Few will have the greatness to bend history, but each of us can work to change a small portion of the events, and the total—all these acts—will be written in the history of this generation.

“It is from numberless diverse acts of courage such as these that the belief that human history is thus shaped.

“Each time a man stands up for an ideal or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.”

Sotto said his detractors should answer the issues he raised in his speech against the RH measure.

“Let them answer the P8 billion now being used [for reproductive health and related concerns].

“Let them answer the laws [already existing on maternal health].

Let them answer the deception about reproductive health when it’s a population control bill,” Sotto said.

He said his critics had gone so low because they could not answer his arguments against the bill.

Does he consider his conclusion a product of plagiarism?

“Impossible. It’s a good thought and better in Tagalog,” Sotto said.

Sam Miguel
09-06-2012, 08:45 AM
^^^ Ito ang isang dahilan kung bakit dapat may minimum educational and functional literacy test before allowing people to vote. My daughter who is a freshman at the Ateneo would never have voted for someone like this. This clown is a continuing disgrace to the great men who once stood, spoke and led from the august high chamber of Congress.

"Marunong ng mag-Tagalog si Kennedy..." How clever of him. What witty repartee. Honed by years doing Bulagaan for the bakya crowd no doubt.

bchoter
09-06-2012, 11:09 AM
^^ "In a separate text message, the senator lamented that proponents of the RH bill were nitpicking"

Teka lang, hindi tungkol sa stand mo sa RH Bill ito...

Joescoundrel
09-25-2012, 01:05 PM
By Juan L. Mercado

Philippine Daily Inquirer

8:31 pm | Monday, September 24th, 2012

“Brainless children boast of their ancestors,” an Asian proverb says. Sen. Vicente Sotto III basked in his grandfather’s achievements, notably the “Sotto Press Freedom Law.”

Authored by Sen. Vicente Sotto, Republic Act 53 shielded scores of journalists from revealing news sources. Remember the scandal of leaked test questions for 300,000 teachers in a civil service exam? In a probe, House members tried to ferret out informants. The late Philippine News Service’s Romeo Abundo and I invoked the Sotto Law. We are thankful and endorse the long overdue move to expand the law’s shield for broadcast.

At a Cebu Press Freedom Week panel discussion Friday, Don Vicente’s grandson ran into a buzzsaw. Did you snip the Penal Code’s libel provision, then paste it into the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012? reporters badgered Sotto.

On Jan. 24, 2012, Sotto piggy-backed the rider on the pending cybersex crime measure, Raissa Robles’ blog on the ABS-CBN website documents. Without public hearing, he expanded the old clause on libel to those “committed through a computer or any other similar means that may (emerge) in the future…”

Sotto III denied wedging Section 4-c (4) on libel into the new law, Sun Star Cebu reported. Not my fingerprints, thank you. But he backed the libel rider. Mainstream media are professionally trained and observe ethical standards, Sotto told Cebu Daily News. “But currently, social media doesn’t.” A number of online writers post without verifying data. “They are not accountable to anyone.”

He’s right. But gagging is not the answer. Presenting better reasons is. As a result, he is twisting in the storm that his first-denied-now-admitted amendment uncorked.

President Aquino signed the bill into law on Sept. 12. His signature came days before he visited the new museum, in a military fort, where his father and Sen. Jose Diokno were secretly imprisoned under martial law censorship.

“The Spanish inquisition has long been disbanded… Why are we reviving it today through constitutionally prohibited ‘prior restraint’?” asked Sen. Teofisto Guingona III. He was the only senator who bucked the bill because of, among other things, the Sotto rider. “A Supreme Court challenge is an option.”

“We will see the Aquino administration in court on this one,” Prof. Harry Roque of the UP Law School added. “There can be nothing sadder than suing the son of icons of democracy for infringement into a cherished right… Other laws enjoy presumption of regularity. This cybercrime law, insofar as it infringes on freedom of expression, will come to court with a very heavy presumption of unconstitutionality.”

“Prior restraint” restricts material from being heard or distributed at all. This is the “most extreme form of censorship” and is a constitutional no-no.

UP Diliman and the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board, meanwhile, banned the showing of the controversial anti-Islam video “Innocence of Muslims.” Roque pushed through with showing the video in his Bill of Rights class. Asked by the MTRCB to explain, Roque twitted back: “I do not have a license from your office (but) I have the Constitution.”

The new law’s rider offered “no distinctions, no qualifications” as to who shall be held liable for libel, noted the Inquirer in its editorial “A blow against free speech.” It does not even say “what actions constitute the crime.”

Let me count the ways then, suggests a Rappler roundup of comments by legal experts and press organizations.

The Revised Penal Code already includes online publication as a platform for crime, De La Salle College of Law Dean Jose Manuel Diokno notes. Sotto’s rider is “redundant.” Ateneo School of Government Dean Antonio La Viña agrees. The word “publication” refers to all kinds, whether online or not.

The new law has “50 shades of liability” Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila Law Dean Ernest Maceda says. A “computer system,” is the gateway to the online world. If someone uses this gateway to tweet a defamatory comment, is he liable? “Given the vast domain of the online universe, will expanding liability for libel allow the arbitrary closure of websites?” And does the phrase “any similar means,” in the new law, refer to the Internet? Ultimately, it is the Supreme Court or Congress that should define what the phrase “any similar means” really means.

Are we dealing here with “borderless crime”? asks a lawyer who requested anonymity. Section 21 states that the “Regional Trial Court shall have jurisdiction… if any of the elements was committed with the use of any computer system wholly or partly situated in the country…” What does “partly” mean?

Government ignored the 2011 declaration of the UN Human Rights Committee that the libel law is “excessive” because it puts violators behind bars, the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility said. “Criminalizing libel violates freedom of expression.”

Instead, the new law ratchets penalties for libel. Section 6 states: “The penalty to be imposed shall be one (1) degree higher than that provided for by the Revised Penal Code.” Ordinary libel is punishable with imprisonment from six months to four years. But those who commit libel using a “computer system” may stew in the slammer from 6 to 12 years. They won’t be entitled to parole. All would serve time under the Sotto rider.

As being written, the legacy of Sotto III will bear no resemblance to the broad freedoms of Sotto I. So what? One can always brag of ancestors.

Joescoundrel
09-25-2012, 01:11 PM
^ So how do we go after irresponsible bloggers and other online writers? We don't let mainstream media just do as they please (or at least we give the illusion that we don't). Is Johnny Mercado therefore saying that it is alright after all to have the online media do as it pleases?

Joescoundrel
09-25-2012, 01:12 PM
And just to be clear, yes Tito Sen, plagiarism pa din ang ginawa mo.

Joescoundrel
10-11-2012, 09:11 AM
Stressed out, Sotto thinks of quitting Senate majority post

By Cathy Yamsuan

Philippine Daily Inquirer

1:27 am | Thursday, October 11th, 2012

Senator Vicente Sotto is thinking of quitting as majority leader in the next Congress.

Yes, the stress of the job is finally getting to him.

No, this was not brought on by his skirmishes with critics over the reproductive health (RH) bill and the Cybercrime Prevention Act.

“I’m not saying I’m resigning. But right now, I have an 80 percent chance of quitting as majority leader,” the senator said.

Sotto said the main problem is that he works harder than the other senators because being majority leader is like supervising traffic during Senate sessions.

As chairman of the Senate rules committee, Sotto is tasked with outlining the session’s agenda, making sure that this is followed and mediating between arguing legislators during debates.

He said the work of majority leader was not commensurate to the glamor or the power associated with the position.

“You have to work harder than the rest. Be more conscientious, master the art of compromise but still take a lot of criticism,” he said.

His civilian job as television host of the noontime show “Eat Bulaga” helps in a way, he said.

Sotto said he sometimes “injects humor” in the Senate debates mainly to “amuse myself” and stir things up when the session becomes too tedious.

He related how once Sen. Joker Arroyo took the microphone and wondered aloud where Sen. Manuel “Lito” Lapid was after Arroyo noticed that his colleague had suddenly disappeared.

Sotto said he would order the Senate sergeant at arms (OSAA) to scour the building for Lapid.

“If he is not here anymore, I will ask the OSAA to go to the parking lot and see if Sen. Lapid is out riding his horse,” he added.

Another time, Sotto noticed Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile humming to the Ilocano song being sung by the choir following the Monday flag ceremony.

Sotto asked the singers to leave immediately after their set “before Sen. (Ferdinand) Bongbong Marcos (Jr.) joins in the chorus.”

Right now, Sotto is still smarting from brickbats that he is using his post to delay the approval of the RH bill because he opposes the measure.

The senator also continues to weather accusations that he plagiarized parts of the speeches he delivered against the RH bill, including a 1966 speech by assassinated US senator Robert Kennedy that he allegedly translated to Filipino.

If he does resign, Sotto said he intends to work like Arroyo who does not chair a Senate committee yet pokes his finger into every bill or resolution he takes a fancy to.

“I am actually envious of Joker,” he said.

Sotto would not name a specific senator he believes should replace him in 2013.

Would Lapid fit the bill?

“Anyone can, as long as that senator reviews or studies parliamentary rules and procedures,” he said.

Joescoundrel
11-13-2012, 08:03 AM
Sotto says he is unfazed by ethics complaints over plagiarized speeches

By Cathy Yamsuan

Philippine Daily Inquirer

8:02 pm | Monday, November 12th, 2012

MANILA, Philippines — Netizens aren’t letting Sen. Tito Sotto off the hook, but the Senate majority leader is unfazed.

Sotto brushed off, on Monday, threats from bloggers to file an ethics complaint against him for plagiarizing portions of web articles in making speeches against the reproductive health bill on the Senate floor.

“These were invented in the email. I will be happy to reply or to react when I receive an official communication to that effect. Other than that, maybe they just want me to be a talking head so they could have news. Excuse me,” Sotto said in an ambush interview.

Sotto stands accused of using in his speech against the contentious reproductive health (RH) bill parts from a blog entry written by US-based Sarah Pope without attribution.

Local bloggers supportive of the RH bill pointed out Sotto’s uncredited quote of the Pope blog, that ironically paraphrased an expert’s opinion on the subject and wasn’t even an original idea.

Days later, Sotto delivered another speech against the RH bill that included quotes from a speech made by the late US Sen. Robert Kennedy in 1966. After bloggers pointed out the second instance of plagiarism, Sotto said he only included and translated into Filipino a quote he found relevant to the RH issue that was “texted” to him.

The senator even joked he did not realize that Kennedy “spoke Tagalog.”

Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, defending Sotto, said that whatever senators uttered in a privilege speech was covered by parliamentary immunity.

“We cannot be questioned anywhere for what we say inside this chamber. Not because we are a special breed but because that is the immunity given by the sovereign people so that we can speak on any subject under the sun,” Enrile told reporters.

“You cannot be questioned by anybody outside this chamber. How can you be questioned if you say anything here? That’s Constitutional law. Not because of any arrogance of power (but) those people who do not understand it (are) ignorant of the very Constitution they are supposed to espouse,” he said.

“They can file a case…(but whether) they can get enough senators to vote in their favor, that’s the problem. As long as we have this system, it’s a question of numbers.”

Enrile said a two-thirds vote would be required before a senator facing an ethics complaint could be meted disciplinary action. Penalties range from admonition to expulsion from the chamber.

Minority Leader Alan Peter Cayetano, chair of the Senate ethics committee, said he had received “less than 10″ ethics complaints but declined to give details.

Joescoundrel
11-13-2012, 08:08 AM
Sotto on apology call: Huh, for what?

by Ayee Macaraig

Posted on 11/12/2012 2:50 PM | Updated 11/12/2012 9:56 PM

MANILA, Philippines – Apologize? For what?

This is how Senate Majority Leader Vicente Sotto III responded to a letter by the daughter of the late US Senator Robert F Kennedy, which Rappler published on Saturday, November 10, urging him to apologize. Kerry Kennedy said Sotto must say sorry for the “unauthorized, unethical theft” of her father’s speech.

In an interview with reporters on Monday, November 12, Sotto refused to comment, saying he has not received any official communication on the issue.

Asked if he will make a public apology, Sotto said, “Huh, for what?”

Told about Kennedy’s letter, the senator said, “That’s not true.”

At least 30 academics from the Ateneo de Manila University, University of the Philippines and De La Salle University will sign the complaint against Sotto. It will be filed on Tuesday, November 13. They say they want him sanctioned for plagiarizing 9 authors, and refusing to apologize when his attention was called.

The ethics complaint against Sotto will be under the Senate Committee on Ethics and Privileges headed by Sen Alan Peter Cayetano.

Cayetano said his committee will meet next week to finalize the rules in handling the Sotto case and other cases filed earlier. He said he cannot say how long the case will take, considering that there are other pending cases.

Cayetano, though, assured the public of fairness as the Senate handles a case against one of its own.

“In any collegial body, that’s the balance, the balance that you’re not above the law and you cannot be arrogant with power but the balance also that you need a certain degree of statesmanship and cooperation to be able to pass the laws and be able to conduct business as a legislative body.”

But Sotto branded as a “rehash” renewed allegations of plagiarism against him.

“Bakit ako? Wala iyan eh. Ano iyan eh, rehash. ‘Diba pinag-usapan na natin noong September iyan? Kayo naman oh, you’re being manipulated,” Sotto told reporters. (Why me? That’s nothing. That’s just a rehash. Didn’t we already discuss that in September? You’re being manipulated.)

Sotto cited his parliamentary immunity in responding to the plagiarism issue.

“Naku. Whoever wants to question a senator of the Republic should read the Constitution first, the Philippine Constitution, Art 6, Sec 11 bago ka magsalita (before you speak).”

He added, “Ako pa magiging talking head nila para magkaroon sila ng news, excuse me ha? Pag walang official, don’t say a word. Anong rereactan mo, baka imbento lang iyan ng mga aficionado na professional manipulator sa Internet.” (They will even use me as a talking head so they will attract news, excuse me. If there is nothing official, don’t say a word. What will I react on, that may just be a fabrication of aficionados who are professional manipulators of the Internet.)

Enrile: I’ll translate Socrates, too!

Sotto literally went to Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile as he defended himself from the allegations. While being interviewed, he saw his ally arrive on the Senate floor and told him about the criticism against him.

Sotto told Enrile, “May naco-complain daw sa akin sa speech ko. Tinagalog ko raw ang speech ni Kennedy.” (Someone is complaining against me. They say I translated Kennedy’s speech.)

Enrile replied in jest, “Mabuti nga tinagalog mo si Kennedy. Tatagalugin ko rin si Socrates!” (It’s a good thing you translated Kennedy. I will also translate Socrates!)

The Senate President turned serious as he addressed the reporters.

“We cannot be questioned for what we say inside this chamber anywhere, not because we are a special breed but because that is the immunity given by the sovereign people so we can speak on any subject under the sun,” Enrile said.

"Those people who do not understand it, they’re ignorant of Constitutional law, of the very Constitution they are supposed to espouse."

Sen Miriam Defensor Santiago, a constitutional law expert and ethics committee member, however said that parliamentary immunity is not applicable to ethics cases.

"No, this is a self, an auto-limitation imposed by senators on themsleves," Santiago said in another interview.

Enrile said the appropriate remedy is a civil suit for damages, not criminal action. He acknowledged that an ethics case can be filed but said the complainants must be ready.

“Well if they can get enough senators to vote in their favor, that’s the problem. We better change our system if we want to change the system but for as long as we have the system, it’s always a question of numbers and there is always a political content involved in everything we do here.”

Enrile added, “In the end, you can only kick a member of the House, of this House if you have I think three-fourths of the members or two-thirds voting in your favor or you can go to the people. You cannot discipline anybody here unless they commit a crime. If they commit a crime, you can charge them.”

Asked if this meant the Senate is tolerating plagiarism, Enrile said, “We are not tolerating. That’s an individual responsibility.”

“In fact as an institution, we copy laws written by other countries.” - Rappler.com

Joescoundrel
11-13-2012, 08:11 AM
^ Tito Sen, mismong mga Kennedy na nagsabing inagaw mo speech ni Bobby Kennedy, pero nagmamatigas ka pa din. Talaga bang hanggang diyan ka na lang? Akala ko ba "statesman" ka?

Joescoundrel
11-13-2012, 08:13 AM
Kennedy to Sotto: 'This is a clear case of plagiarism'

by Miguel Syjuco

Posted on 11/10/2012 11:21 AM | Updated 11/12/2012 8:02 PM

MANILA, Philippines - Long is the saga of Sottogate, yet allegations against Senator Tito Sotto continue.

Now 4 US copyright holders have spoken out, including the president of the Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice and Human Rights: RFK’s daughter, Kerry Kennedy.

All this began again the other day, when Sarah Pope, Janice Formichella, and Peter Engelman issued a joint statement alleging that Sotto had “infringed on our intellectual property rights and plagiarized.”

Their protest was swiftly dismissed by Sotto and his staff, who, according to GMA News, “questioned its authenticity, pointing out that it did not even have an official letterhead.”

This, after Sotto’s chief of staff, Hector Villacorta, reportedly said they would address the issue only after the aggrieved parties complained.

Complain they have, in no uncertain terms. Yet when Formichella wrote about the issue in Ms. Magazine, Sotto churlishly said: “She is pathetic. She is just riding on to get famous.”

When Engelman wrote a statement, he was ignored completely. And when Sotto was asked about his alleged plagiarism of Kennedy’s speech, our Senate Majority Leader replied: “The people who think this is plagiarism should think again. I did not copy it, I translated it. Do they know the spelling of ‘copy’ and ‘translate’? They have low IQ!”

And so I present to Messrs Sotto and Villacorta this fourth complaint. On official letterhead. From someone who knows the spelling of copy and translate, and undeniably needs not ride on to get famous. Such is Ms Kennedy’s track record in continuing her father’s legacy.

Joescoundrel
11-13-2012, 08:18 AM
'Damning evidence' vs Sotto: Kennedy rebuke

by Ayee Macaraig

Posted on 11/11/2012 7:38 PM | Updated 11/12/2012 8:01 PM

MANILA, Philippines – A letter from the daughter of the late US Sen Robert F Kennedy is “the most damning evidence” in the ethics case to be filed against Senate Majority Leader Vicente “Tito” Sotto III.

At least 30 faculty members of the University of the Philippines, Ateneo de Manila University, and De La Salle University will sign the ethics complaint against Sotto for plagiarism.

The case will be filed before the Senate Ethics and Privileges Committee on Tuesday, November 13.

Ibarra “Barry” Gutierrez III, the complainants’ legal counsel, told Rappler on Sunday, November 11, that the petition involves 9 instances where Sotto used online materials without proper attribution. Sotto used the information for a speech against the Reproductive Health (RH) bill delivered in 3 parts from August to September.

To be included as an addendum in the complaint is a letter by Kennedy’s daughter, Kerry, on Sotto’s use of her father’s 1966 Day of Affirmation speech. Kerry Kennedy is President of the Robert F Kennedy Center for Justice and Human Rights.

Sotto said it was not plagiarism because he translated the quote into Tagalog.

In Kerry’s letter, she said the argument “has no ethical merit,” urging Sotto to “apologize for his unethical, unsanctioned theft.”

“This is the most damning evidence against Sen Sotto. He dismissed the bloggers as wanting fame. Kerry Kennedy does not need mileage. She has no vested interest against Sen Sotto,” complainant and RH advocate Leloy Claudio told Rappler in a phone interview on Sunday, November 11.

Claudio, who previously challenged Sotto to debate on the RH bill and plagiarism, said the senator must face the complaint. “There is no other way but to say ‘I plagiarized, I’m sorry’ and accept the censure. There is no escaping this.”

Rappler has been trying to reach Sotto and his staff but they have not responded as of posting time. The senator though previously welcomed the ethics case as a chance to prove his innocence.

Censure, suspension?

Gutierrez said that the complainants, composed of concerned academics and citizens, will ask the Senate to sanction Sotto or at least say that he made a mistake.

The lawyer is a former faculty member of the UP College of Law, and its spokesperson when it criticized Supreme Court Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo for plagiarism.

“What we want is an acknowledgement that [Sotto] did something wrong, whether the committee sees it fit to censure him, suspend him or require him to issue a declaration that he was wrong," Gutierrez said.

"If we can’t expect higher officials to be intellectually honest, how can we tell our students to do it?”

Robert F. Kennedy's daughter, Kerry, said she was offended by the use of her father's speech to argue against "the right to contraception."

Foreign complainants included soon

Aside from Kerry’s letter, the complaint will include as an addendum a statement issued by 3 US writers and bloggers. Peter Engelmen, Janice Formichella and Sarah Pope said that Sotto plagiarized their work and they find this “deceptive, unethical, illegal and unacceptable.”

Gutierrez said his group is working out the logistics to include the US-based writers and bloggers as complainants.

“They have to go to the nearest embassy and consulate to sign and authenticate and verify the complaint but they live far so we are working on that.”

Author’s right vs distortion, mutilation

Gutierrez said the complaint has two legal bases:

Rule 2, Section 15 of the Rules of the Senate Ethics Committee granting the committee power to probe “improper conduct which may reflect upon the Senate.”

Section 193 of the Intellectual Property Code

In a speech to defend himself, Sotto argued that plagiarism is not a crime in the Philippines, and that copyright infringement was not applicable to his case. The senator also said he made a blanket statement that he was not pretending to be wise but sourced his information from experts.

Gutierrez, however, said the Code gives authors “moral rights” like the right to be attributed, and to object to any “distortion, mutilation” of their work.

“He not only refused to give acknowledgment. He even gave insulting remarks of people whose works he utilized and took them out of context. They have the right not to have their works twisted,” Gutierrez said.

Kennedy said in her letter, “I am particularly offended to see a speech my father gave in support of global human rights distorted by Sen Sotto as an argument against the right to contraception. Expanding and protecting access to contraception is a global priority I have promoted for years, and limiting that freedom was in no way the topic of the 1966 Day of Affirmation speech.”

‘International embarrassment'

Sen Alan Peter Cayetano heads the Senate Ethics Committee. Its members are Senators Miriam Defensor-Santiago, Gregorio Honasan II, Loren Legarda, Ferdinand Marcos Jr, Lito Lapid, and Joker Arroyo.

Some senators have dismissed the controversy. Marcos earlier said that the plagiarism issue against Sotto is “a storm in a teacup.”

Gutierrez and Claudio hope that senators will take the issue seriously. They compared Sotto's behavior to that of businessman Manuel V Pangilinan who was also accused of plagiarism but immediately apologized.

“This is wholesale copying done probably by the staff but Sen Sotto did not take the decent way out and apologize. He said, ‘Bloggers lang iyon (they’re just bloggers), why would I copy them?’ Now, the authors are complaining and the senators cannot sweep this under the rug," Gutierrez said.

The lawyer added, “This has become an international embarrassment for the Philippine Senate.” – Rappler.com

Sam Miguel
11-15-2012, 08:57 AM
Prolife group rallies behind besieged Sotto

By Philip C. Tubeza

Philippine Daily Inquirer

1:53 am | Thursday, November 15th, 2012

A profile group on Wednesday rallied behind beleaguered Senate Majority Floor Leader Vicente “Tito” Sotto III, who is accused by his critics of being an unrepentant serial plagiarist.

Anthony James Perez, president of Filipinos for Life, said Sotto was a victim of “trial by publicity” because of his opposition to the controversial Reproductive Health (RH) bill.

“On behalf of all the members of Filipinos for Life, I would like to extend to you our support for your and our prolife cause. These must be very difficult times for you and your family, especially with the way that the public has engaged in a trial by publicity instead of focusing on the issues that will matter to this nation,” Perez said in a letter to Sotto.

“We have always held you in the highest regard and this is the reason we offered our assistance to you and your staff in battling the RH bill. Rest assured that nothing has changed, and that we are always at your disposal,” he added.

Academicians on Tuesday filed a complaint against Sotto before the Senate ethics committee for plagiarizing the work of others when he delivered three speeches against the RH bill months ago.

Sotto also got words of sympathy from election lawyer Romulo Macalintal. In a “letter of concern” to the Senate ethics committee, Macalintal said he believed Robert Kennedy “would even be proud that Senate majority leader Tito Sotto used a speech he delivered against apartheid in 1966 in the fight against government-endorsed contraception.”

The late senator’s daughter Kerry, president of the Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice and Human rights, had reportedly accused Sotto of distorting her father’s “Day of Affirmation” speech, using it without attribution and passing off the words as his own just because the senator had translated the portions he used in Filipino.

Yet another letter of support for Sotto came from a group calling itself Responsible Internet Users for Social Empowerment (CyberRISE) which asked the committee to ignore the ethics complaint against Sotto. With a report from Cathy Yamsuan

Sam Miguel
11-16-2012, 07:57 AM
Enrile pushes for Senate probe on Sotto

by Paterno Esmaquel II

Posted on 11/14/2012 3:01 PM | Updated 11/14/2012 5:35 PM

MANILA, Philippine – Plagiarism is plagiarism, committed wittingly or unwittingly.

This much is clear for Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, who delivered a speech Wednesday, November 14, a day after an ethics complaint was filed against Senate Majority Leader Vicente Sotto III for alleged plagiarism.

He urged an investigation into alleged plagiarism by any senator, in apparent reference to Sotto. Both senators are longtime political allies; Sotto belongs to the so-called Enrile bloc in the upper chamber.

"We are not condoning the act of plagiarism in this Senate. Far from it. If there is anyone of us wittingly or unwittingly who commits this act, then I’m sure that that member would be man enough or honorable enough to stand up and answer for it," Enrile said.

On Tuesday, November 13, Sotto apologized for copying quotes from the late US Senator Robert F Kennedy without attribution. But the former comedian denied it was plagiarism, explaining he did not intend to steal Kennedy's words.

Sotto claimed he was clueless the quote came from Kennedy. He got this "inspirational line," the senator said, from a text message sent by a Christian leader. "Kung sa tingin nila ay kinopya at tingin ng Kennedy family, kinopya ko, puwede sapagkat kinopya ko nga sa text iyon," Sotto said. (If they think I copied it and the Kennedys think I copied it, that's possible because I did copy it from the text.)

Plagiarism is commonly defined as stealing another person's thoughts or words by failing to attribute it to the original author, intentionally or not.

But Sotto on Tuesday said the Senate – whose journals are also considered scholarly references – defines plagiarism differently.

"Iba po ang pananaw sa academe. Sa academe kasi ang pangongopya bawal at kung anu-ano ang bawal. Pero dito ho sa Senado, hindi po iyon, ibang usapan po iyon pero wag na iyon." (The academe has a different view. In the academe, copying is prohibited, they prohibit all sorts of things. But here in the Senate, it's not. It's another discussion.)

Different tune

Despite his speech, Enrile sang a different tune on Monday, November 12, after news broke that the late US senator's daughter, Kerry Kennedy, called Sotto's attention for plagiarism.

“We cannot be questioned for what we say inside this chamber anywhere, not because we are a special breed but because that is the immunity given by the sovereign people so we can speak on any subject under the sun,” Enrile told reporters Monday. "Those people who do not understand it, they’re ignorant of constitutional law, of the very Constitution they are supposed to espouse."

He even laughed it off with Sotto, who is accused of plagiarism by translating Kennedy into Filipino and passing off the quote as his own. “Mabuti nga tinagalog mo si Kennedy. Tatagalugin ko rin si Socrates!” (It’s a good thing you translated Kennedy. I will also translate Socrates!)

Now, Enrile said he is against plagiarism, and has "never done any act to copy or even think of appropriating unto myself the thoughts the intellectual property or the ideas of other people."

The Senate President has one more term remaining at the Senate. His son, Jack, is running for senator in the May 2013 elections.

Enrile said "no one is above the law," even with the parliamentary privilege of free speech that Sotto has invoked.

He said no senator is immune to an ethical complaint, and everyone "can be investigated by the members or their peers and, if warranted, disciplined even to the extent of being expelled as a member of this house."

"The constitutional privilege of freedom of speech granted to us was given to us to enable us to speak on any issue, good or bad, for the information of the people, so that they will know what is going on. No one is immune from being investigated for misconduct done by us," Enrile said.

However, Enrile, a lawyer, stressed the importance of due process.

"(No) one can say that by the mere fact that they have filed an ethics complaint against any member of this house, they have already proven their case... The law cannot condemn without any hearing. Otherwise, this will not be a government of laws, this will be a government of men," Enrile said. – Rappler.com

Sam Miguel
11-19-2012, 10:24 AM
Now, Sotto hints JFK a plagiarist

By Cathy C. Yamsuan

Philippine Daily Inquirer

12:01 am | Saturday, November 17th, 2012

If I fall, you’re going down with me.

Senate Majority Leader Vicente Sotto III had to drag the dead in an effort to win an argument, calling attention to a news article insinuating that John F. Kennedy plagiarized an oft-quoted portion of his 1961 inaugural speech.

Sotto sent the Inquirer a text message bearing a link to the website www.dailymail.co.uk that when clicked would direct the reader to a story by Daniel Bates alleging that the slain US president lifted the quote “Ask not what the country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country” from his former headmaster in Choate, a boarding and day school in Wallingford, Connecticut.

The revelation is supposedly a detail from “Jack Kennedy: Elusive Hero,” the most recently released biography of probably the most popular chief executive in US history.

It is not difficult to guess what prompted Sotto to direct attention to the story.

The senator is accused of lifting quotes from a 1966 speech of the US president’s late brother, Sen. Robert Kennedy, translating these into Filipino and passing them off as his own in a speech delivered in September.

Sotto is facing an ethics complaint filed by a group of academicians who also accused the senator of lifting quotes from four US-based bloggers, twisting these to support his argument against the reproductive health (RH) bill and failing to properly credit them when he delivered three speeches in August and September against the measure.

At the Summit on Family Planning in the Business Sector on Thursday, former Foreign Secretary Roberto Romulo used the President Kennedy quote in his welcome remarks.

Quoted, not copied

“I think it would be appropriate to give you a quote—I assure you it’s a quote, I’m not plagiarizing—from John F. Kennedy who said, ‘Ask not what the country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country,’” Romulo said.

He added, “I think this sums up what you can do for the country.”

Many interpreted Romulo’s effort to stress that he was quoting President Kennedy as an indirect attack against Sotto.

The website report said “Jack Kennedy: Elusive Hero,” penned by US author Chris Matthews, “claims the line originally came from George St. John… one of the president’s former headmasters at the Choate School in Connecticut.”

It added that Matthews “unearthed” notes written by St. John, “which suggest he had been aware of the ‘ask not’ line for many years.”

“The book also includes a reply to a questionnaire about JFK’s (Kennedy’s initials) time at the school, sent to his former classmates when he was president. One of the students wrote, ‘I boil every time I read or hear the Ask not… exhortation as being original with Jack,’” the report said.

“Time and time again we all heard [the headmaster] say that to the whole Choate family,” one source in the book was also quoted as saying.

Kennedy’s 14-minute speech, delivered at his inauguration on Capitol Hill on Jan. 20, 1961, is often included in compilations of the best speeches ever delivered.

The website report predicted that Matthews’ “extraordinary revelation is sure to raise eyebrows among historians,” once it is released.

It added that Kennedy’s speech writer Theodore C. Sorensen “has long been thought” as the source of the popular quote.

Sam Miguel
11-20-2012, 08:03 AM
Sotto confident ethics complaint won’t progress

By Helen Flores

(The Philippine Star) | Updated November 20, 2012 - 2:08am

MANILA, Philippines - Senate Majority Leader Vicente Sotto III yesterday expressed confidence that the Senate ethics committee will quickly dismiss the complaint filed against him for alleged plagiarism.

“I’m very confident that it will not even reach to that (voting),” Sotto told reporters after attending the weekly Kapihan sa Diamond Hotel media forum.

He believes the complaint would not progress since the Senate journal would prove that he did not claim ownership of any material he used in his speeches last August on the controversial reproductive health bill.

“The answer to that is give them (senators) the Senate journal. If the members of the ethics committee were not present during the time I delivered my speech I’ll just give them a copy of the journal,” he said.

The senator claimed that the copy being used by his critics was just a draft of his speech.

“That’s a piece of paper unless it comes from the journal of the Senate or I delivered it in my speech; that is not my speech and that is my only answer to the committee on ethics,” Sotto said.

Last week, 37 individuals composed of professors and bloggers filed an ethics complaint against the senator for allegedly plagiarizing some parts of his speeches meant to oppose the passage of the RH bill.

The complaint claimed that portions of Sotto’s speeches against the RH bill delivered on Aug. 13, Aug. 15 and Sept. 5 “were near verbatim reproductions of portions” of articles, briefing papers, and a speech previously posted in blogs and websites.

Senate Minority Leader Alan Peter Cayetano, chair of the Senate ethics committee, earlier said they will still have to establish their rules before they can hold a hearing on the complaint.

Asked if he thinks Sen. Pia Cayetano, one of the principal authors of the RH bill, could influence her brother Alan Peter on the ethics complaint against him, Sotto said: “No, I have no apprehensions about that.”

Strengthening the law

Once Congress finally approves amendments to the 15-year-old Intellectual Property Code, Philippine laws will cover incidents similar to Sotto’s case.

The Senate and the House of Representatives yesterday reconciled versions of the bill amending the Intellectual Property Code at a conference in Traders Hotel in Pasay City.

Sen. Manuel Villar and Rep. Albert Garcia, chairmen of the respective committees of trade and commerce, have agreed to adopt the majority of the provisions under Senate Bill 2842.

Among the highlights of the measure is the reproduction of published articles or materials in a specialized format exclusively for the use of the blind, visually- and reading-impaired persons, creation of the Bureau of Copyright and other related rights, and protection of the works of local artists.

“The visually and hearing impaired can enjoy this provided the materials are not used for profit... and then the protection of the local artists which allow protection of their intellectual property, creations and performances,” Villar said, adding that the creation of the Bureau for Copyright and other related rights will strengthen the agency.

The lawmakers also agreed to the proposals of Sen. Edgardo Angara, who introduced the amendments that would include the protection of other rights: moral rights, resale rights and neighboring rights, in addition to copyright.

Asked if his amendments will cover the controversy facing Sotto, Angara said the Kennedy speech is covered by “moral rights.”

As differentiated from a copyrighted property, Angara said Sotto’s argument that the Kennedy speech is already covered by public domain can also be deemed proper.

He explained that moral rights mean the “right of attribution, right against alteration and right against distortion.” – With Christina Mendez

Sam Miguel
11-20-2012, 08:36 AM
Imitations

By Conrado de Quiros

Philippine Daily Inquirer

9:04 pm | Monday, November 19th, 2012

It’s almost as amusing as an episode of “Iskul Bukol.” Tito Sotto’s camp now suggests that John F. Kennedy himself took liberties with other people’s lines and claimed them as his own. Specifically, that he wasn’t the originator of “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country,” it was his teacher.

The correction appears in a book called “Jack Kennedy: Elusive Hero” by Chris Matthews. It was the headmaster of the school Kennedy went to, named George St. John, who kept saying that to the students. It was attested to by one of Kennedy’s classmates who said, “I boil every time I read or hear the ‘Ask not…’ exhortation as being original with Jack. Time and time again we all heard [the headmaster] say that to the whole Choate family.”

This isn’t the first time I myself have read this. This has appeared in a number of articles in the past, for the simple reason that Kennedy himself attributed the source of the idea to others, at least verbally to friends and acquaintances, if not to the world in his speech. But that is by no means plagiarism in that the other fellow never put it down in writing. We do not know exactly in what context he said it. We do not know exactly how he said it.

It was Kennedy who said it that way. Or more accurately, it was his speechwriter, Theodore Sorensen, who phrased it that way. Should Kennedy have made the attribution in his speech? Maybe, but he didn’t need to. To the extent that the idea hadn’t found a claimant, his claim being writ in stone, or paper, it was fair game, it was part of collective lore or wisdom. All that we hear around us are so. Sorensen probably heard Kennedy himself saying it many times and decided to incorporate it in his speech. That is what speechwriters do. At their best, they just give shape and form to other people’s thoughts, however random or wispy.

To be sure, the Sotto camp’s sniping at Kennedy wasn’t entirely unprovoked. It was induced by Roberto Romulo taking a dig at Sotto in a business-sector family planning summit thus: “I think it would be appropriate to give you a quote—I assure you it’s a quote, I’m not plagiarizing—from John F. Kennedy who said, ‘Ask not what the country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.’” But even if Sotto’s response wasn’t unprovoked, it was still the wrong one. There’s just no parallel. Elsewhere, Sotto has said that the people he rips off from should be flattered because as the man said (Charles Colton, actually) imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Well, imitation might be, the original being known, but not so plagiarism, the original being hidden from view.

But what really makes all this miserable is not that Sotto mistakes imitation for plagiarism, using an idea and purloining a text. Even if Kennedy himself plagiarized—which he did not—what of it? It doesn’t justify anything. Plagiarism is wrong whether some of the best people in the world can be discovered to have done it. Plagiarism sucks whether some or all of the senators, or the speechwriters they hire (cheaply), do it all the time.

Imitation is bad enough as it is, especially for us, who have thrived, or languished, depending on how you look at it, by aping other people. That we’ve thrived in it is easily shown by the sign various hotels and bars in Asia hang on their doors, “Filipino band playing,” referring to the prowess of Pinoy musicians to do covers like the original. That we have languished in it is equally easily shown by the reputation we’ve developed over time of being copycats, specifically cheap and inferior American imitations. You’d imagine the days of the “Elvis of the Philippines” would have been pushed back by OPM, but they keep coming back, if in less garish forms.

You’d imagine therefore that our trajectory, or direction, of striving should be toward eschewing imitation and being as original as possible. Or avoiding the beaten path and blazing new trails instead. Imitation may be flattering to the imitated, but it is not so to the imitating. You’d imagine that a senator would be exerting himself to summon a burst of originality and creativity from us, and not encouraging us to lapse back into manufacturing a Xerox culture.

That’s just for imitation, it’s far worse for plagiarism.

What’s unsavory about it is that it drags us back to the previous government’s time when public officials justified their existence not by showing the best they could be but by showing the law had not proven them guilty beyond a shadow of doubt. Arroyo deserved to be there not because she embodied the aspirations of the people but because the courts had not proven her votes fake. Now, a senator deserves to be there not because he drives us to exceed ourselves but because he can point to his fellows, quite apart from a former US president, as quite possibly being as guilty of plagiarism as he. To use a “Iskul Bukol” metaphor, that’s not striving for an “A,” that’s settling for “pasang awa.”

Kennedy’s inaugural speech, not quite incidentally, was an exhortation to excellence, idealism, transcendence. It ends this way, the last part being relevant here: “My fellow Americans: Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. My fellow citizens of the world: Ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man. Whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us here the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you.”

It’s something our senators would do well to heed. Ask not who else has copied or imitated or plagiarized, ask who has achieved things we can marvel at and be proud of.

The latter is the only thing worth imitating.

Sam Miguel
11-28-2012, 08:53 AM
Excuses for plagiarists

By: Jessica Zafra

November 18, 2012 7:54 PM

If Senator Sotto would just admit that he and his speechwriters ripped off someone else’s work and apologize, this would all be over. The audience has a very short memory; it will simply move on to the next topic. But no, he has to insist that he did nothing wrong. He has to maintain the veneer of moral superiority and keep it shiny with the daily applications of saliva spewed in his defense. He must be righteous, because that is the primary argument of the opponents of the reproductive health bill: Righteousness. They have hijacked goodness, virtue, godliness, decency, and claimed exclusive rights to these. Anyone who disagrees with them is against goodness, virtue, godliness and decency and is therefore Eeeveel.

But what if someone from the ranks of the self-proclaimed Righteous is publicly exposed as a plagiarist? Could it mean that they are not all they’re cranked up to be?

Here’s the thing about plagiarism: You can’t commit it accidentally. You can accidentally kill a person—your brakes fail, you can’t see through your windshield, he suddenly runs into the path of your car—but you can’t accidentally rip off another person’s writing. It cannot cut and paste itself into your speech on its own. What can you do?

Speaking as an evil, non-virtuous, godless, indecent human, here are some methods for defending yourself against charges of plagiarism.

1. Pass the buck.

“Somebody else wrote it for me—he’s the plagiarist! Get him!”

2. Amnesia

“Oops, I forgot to put quotation marks. So-wee.”

3. Blame technology

“Dammit, the document was accidentally reformatted in Word so the quotation marks or italics were removed. Ergo it’s Bill Gates’s fault. Get him!”

4. Blame your brilliance

“I have a photographic memory so I remember everything I read, and I can’t distinguish between other people’s thoughts and my own. This is the problem of having an IQ like mine. I apologize for my spectacular intelligence.”

5. Turn the tables

“Actually, I wrote that paragraph and that blogger stole it from me. Plagiarist! Get her!”

6. Cheap flattery and misquotation

“Copying is the sincerest form of flattery.” Rimshot.

7. Meta-flattery

“I am paying the author the highest compliment by copying him. Because what greater honor is there than to be me? His words ring truer and louder when they come from me. You should thank me, ungrateful wretches.”

8. Diss the author

“But the author wasn’t stating an original idea anyway. I just happened to restate her unoriginal idea using the exact same words and punctuation marks. There being a finite number of words, phrases and punctuation marks that may be used to express the same thought. What an amazing coincidence!

“The author is a nobody so I’m doing her a favor by bringing her work to a wider public than she could ever reach. Seriously, did you know she even existed before I said something she wrote, using the exact same words she used, and conveniently forgot to mention her?”

9. Sabotage

“That portion you say was plagiarized was not in the original draft of my speech. Clearly, someone is trying to get me in trouble. Probably an advocate of the reproductive health bill. They must’ve stolen my speech while I was signing autographs, and replaced it with a speech that included portions stolen from the work of other people. I’m being framed, like Harrison Ford in The Fugitive. Find that one-legged man!”

10. Cite precedents and invent a fake trend

“This is a problem many public intellectuals have had to face this year. Fareed Zakaria, Jonah Lehrer, and now me. Obviously we’re in the middle of a plagiarism epidemic. I blame the 24-hour news cycle and the frantic schedules that over-hyphenated media celebrities like myself must keep. The Internet must be held to account for this disturbing development.”

11. I am the Kwisatz Haderach!

Only makes sense if you’ve read Dune.

12. The English Major Defense

“Who is Sarah Pope? Oh I thought that stuff was written by Alexander Pope! You know, like, The Rape of the Lock? The Dunciad? ‘Cause Alexander Pope is in the Western canon and his words should be instantly familiar to all literate, erudite persons. “And all who told it added something new, and all who heard it made enlargements too…” You’ve never heard that? God, you illiterates.

“Anyway, when words are universally familiar, it’s silly to even attribute them. You don’t have to say, “Fourscore and seven years ago, in the words of Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter,” that’s just showing off.

13. So What

“Herodotus didn’t have proper attributions in The Histories either, and he’s the Father of History. Whenever he actually cites his source—that’s your clue that he’s making up the story.”

Note: The above may be an instance of plagiarism since it does not cite the classicist who first noted that when Herodotus cites his source he’s usually lying.

14. The Shakespeare Defense

“It may seem that I have committed plagiarism, but centuries from now my speeches will be taught in schools, analyzed in dissertations, performed in theatres all over the world and adapted for the screen. Just like my esteemed predecessor, William Shakespeare. He borrowed the plots of all his plays, and he never even mentioned his sources. Hamlet is from the Saxo Grammaticus, Julius Caesar and Coriolanus are from Plutarch, Henry IV, V, VI are from Holinshed’s Chronicles, and so on.

“How is what I did different from what Shakespeare did?”

Note: Shakespeare did borrow the plots of his plays, but his plays were way better than their sources, plus he wrote all the lines in his plays himself. Some critics still insist that other people wrote Shakespeare’s plays. They’re just bitter.

15. Come clean

“I did it, I copied from the blogger. I’m sorry. I won’t do it again. Now how about that woman who freaked out at the LRT station, huh? And what’s with Elle Fanning’s ugly shoes?”

bchoter
11-28-2012, 01:31 PM
"11. I am the Kwisatz Haderach!"

Paul or Leto :D