Vicente Sotto’s defenses

SEN. Vicente Sotto III’s responses to the accusation of plagiarism against his privileged speeches on the reproductive health bill have been one bad defense after another. Consider these: -- Instead of owning the lifting of passages and apologizing for the failure to attribute it to the authors, he argued that plagiarism is not a crime but, at most, a violation of intellectual property rights.

That it’s not in the penal books doesn’t mean it’s not despicable. A cardinal sin in journalism, a terrible wrong in literary writing, and embarrassing and unethical among academics, judges, corporate, civic, and state leaders, plagiarism can’t be defended by saying it’s not criminal.

-- Alleging that others did it too, including other famous persons, doesn’t deflect the charge.

Caught jaywalking, one can’t resist fine or jail by citing many others who got away (although being wayward on the street is petty compared to stealing other people’s work).

‘Ad-hominems’

-- The senator blasted at his unknown critics, questioning their motive and suggesting they, unlike him, could be drunks who beat up spouses or, unlike his “Eat Bulaga” TV show, haven’t helped thousands of needy persons. And similar “ad hominem” arguments.

-- Worse, Sotto allegedly worked in a rush for the inclusion of Internet libel in the anti-cybercrime bill, resulting in a flawed law and projecting himself as a vengeful legislator.

The senator may do better before the Senate ethics committee by stopping the jabs at his critics and reviewing plagiarism as a threat on values in the senator’s job.