So far, so good!

The movie, “Innocence of Muslims”, its trailer on YouTube, and the protests, the angry riots, and violent attacks against US and their embassies in Arab countries, including the killing of a US ambassador, should not be seen simply as reflecting one issue. The geo-political aspects reflected by the angry backlash are sadly intertwined with the issue freedom of speech and religious rights.

The belief in freedom of speech and expression exudes the confidence in the power of good speech overwhelming the bad, and that bad speech, such as this offensive video, can be dealt with in a satisfactory manner, using the range of speech and expression to protest, to oppose and perhaps correct the offensive content, or to defend what is attacked. Peaceful assembly for the purposes of protest and calls to action are now widely seen now as a means of effective self-expression, more powerful for its being collective.

Life would be so simple if that were the reality. Recent events have shown life as quite different from our aspiration.

A product of self-expression, whatever its artistic qualities or lack thereof, is regarded as protected speech. Described by most reports and commentary as offensive, the trailer of the film  has triggered the most recent wave of violence in Arab countries, with communities venting anger and outrage against America, the country’s embassies and officials. We should bear in mind that the anger and outrage arise not just because of the film but may be rooted in long-standing dismay and discontent over the US government’s failings in dealing with the problematic issues of the region.

Ross Douthat, in his column in the International Herald Tribune (September 17), points out that addressing this as an issue of freedom of speech misses the point. “The mobs,” he wrote, “don’t exist because of an offensive movie, and the American ambassador isn’t dead because what appears to be a group of Coptic Christians in California decided to use their meager talents to disparage the Prophet Muhammad.”

I agree. The YouTube video was uploaded in July. The attacks could not be disconnected from the date of 9/11. But the matter of free speech inheres in this case and sounds off fundamental questions.

We can only cheer the announced decision of the Philippine government that it will not act to to suppress the offensive trailer in YouTube, nor to block access to it. We hope not to have to face the prospect of our movie distributors acquiring the movie for viewing in our theaters, given how they have failed so often to get really worthy international movies for the audiences in the Philippines.

The Philippines has a sizable population of Muslims, and militant groups have been identified as having ties with global terrorist networks. There is reason for concern that such violent protests in other Islamic communities will resonate at home.

Reports say that Sulu Representative Habib Tupay Loong did ask the administration to block the film showing, as it may provide an excuse for terrorist groups operating in the country. So far, the only demonstration to the video held in Marawi was non-violent, attended by an estimated 600 people, engaging in no more than the symbolic protest, burning of replicas of US and Israeli flags.

In response to the provocation of the video, Muslim leaders were one in calling for restraint and sobriety among their communities, even as they denounced the insult to their religious belief. The Moro Islamic Liberation Front issued a call for calm among Muslims around the world. According to a report, they also asked Western countries to “criminalize anti-religious acts”—hopefully, this would not include offensive speech.

All of this is progress. Non-Muslim Filipinos should respond by activating in our media the kind of reporting and coverage that reflects openness and tolerance of religious diversity and respect for the beliefs held sacred by others not of their faith.

We all have a lot to learn in this field. We should begin by re-visiting, and hopefully, learning to treasure the provisions for such tolerance in our Constitution, the language of which places profound trust in our capacity to make the Bill of Rights a living charter for all Filipinos.