Inside Philippine politics & beyond

Fr. Bernas calls Cybercrime Law “frightening”

Share:
LinkedIn0
Pinterest0

Newsbytes

By Raïssa Robles

The Cybercrime Law is “partly good and partly chilling,” wrote Jesuit priest-lawyer Joaquin Bernas in his latest blog entry posted yesterday.

Bernas explained why:

As can easily be seen, the law deals not only with the most delicate rights of freedom of expression, freedom of communication, and the privacy of communication but also with the equally sacred right of the people “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects” against government intrusion.  These rights suffered during the period of martial rule. Their suppression or impairment are usually  the targets of governments who have dark intentions.  When criticized, the facile answer to critics given by those with dark intentions is that these rights are not absolute.  That defense is already being repeated by Palace mouthpieces.  It is therefore a good time to look into the disturbing aspects of the law.  We might begin by taking at least a preliminary look at some of the provisions which are now under attack.

To read the rest of his explanation on the cybercrime law, please click on this link.

For the young Netizens who are now running scared because of this law, this gives you a chance and a lesson to experience even just a little bit the chilling effect of dictator Ferdinand Marcos’ Martial Law.   The latter was much, much worse.  And yet you fear this online libel.

By the way, I’m glad Senator Vicente Sotto has finally admitted it was he who had inserted the online libel provision in the Cybercrime Act.

Wonder why he said this to a foreign news network but denied the same to local journalists.

Prominent digital rights champion takes up our fight against online libel

Since I wrote about Senator Vicente Sotto’s midnight insertion of the online libel section in the Cybercrime Prevention Act, the outrage  has gone viral on the Net.

My husband Alan called my attention to the San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation which wrote a piece supporting Filipino netizens. I am humbled by the fact that EFF linked the piece to my website. It is a demonstration of the power of the World Wide Web to connect people globally together.

Please click on this link to read the piece.

Boingboing also picks up cybercrime law

My piece was also picked up by the much-read culture and technology site Boingboing. And I’m not even a geek :)

Please click on this link to read.

Philippine Daily Inquirer mentions me in their editorial

I would also like to thank the Philippine Daily Inquirer, the biggest-selling Philippine newspaper, for mentioning me and what I wrote in their editorial.

Please click on this link to read.

Again, all these underscore that one person cannot do this alone.

But altogether, we can.

I’m not against a libel law covering netizens

Let me explain my personal stand on online libel. I am not against punishing people who make libelous statements online. But the law has to be well-defined on what are considered libelous statements; who gets punished for them; and what the punishment is. I also don’t believe in a jail term.

And I believe a public hearing should be called on the matter and a separate law crafted just on this.

I have been a victim of libelous statements myself – frequently repeated lies that accuse me up to now of being “the small lady who gave bank documents to the prosecution” during the impeachment trial of then Chief Justice Renato Corona; of being a kleptomaniac who filched from a high-end furniture store; and of being a paid hack. I am aghast at how some people can make up lies and post these online. I will fight such lies no end and will expose those behind it.

But I believe that the Internet can and is being used more for the greater good of the country. The Cybercrime Law – the way it is so sloppily worded now – will make this blooming of democracy shrivel on the vine.

As my hubby Alan told me during one of our discussions at the breakfast table, democracy is defending another person’s right to say what I vehemently disagree with; not what I agree with. Sometimes, discussions do get so heated up that these degenerate into name-calling and opinions that defy logic. But this is all part and parcel of our maturation as a democracy.

Which is why, Alan said we have to rid our law books of what he calls “this Sottobomination”.

Alan also also coined another word –” Sottomy: the act of poisoning a well-intentioned bill with a vested interest stealth amendment not subject to public hearing.”

I have always believed in the expression of contrary views, and this shows in this blog. Because only when we are exposed to a multiplicity of opinions and ideas do we see many sides of an issue. In the same way that in order to appreciate the beauty of a polished diamond, you have to turn it around and around to see all its facets.

Oh, by the way – NO, this is not the interesting topic  I promised to write about Sotto. That’s coming next. You’d be surprised. I guess he will, too.

Comments

  1. did sotto exposed all his sides so pinoys will appreciate his worth as a senator?

  2. “Oh, by the way – NO, this is not the interesting topic I promised to write about Sotto. That’s coming next. You’d be surprised. I guess he will, too.” – RR

    It’s 8.25 am Monday, 01 Oct 2012 (AEST), how long will we wait?

    Wouldn’t like to miss or finish my meal with out the main course or dessert.
    How long should you stir and fry the dish of the week?

    I hope the Exposé could bring the House down. :smile:

  3. All sides are important in order to shape a law. Sneaky individuals have no room in legislation.

  6. Well, this article is plenty interesting enough, so the next one better be a humdinger.

    Libel is such a slippery slope, eh? Senator Sotto blames bloggers for harming him, totally denying the point that his plagiarism is the root cause. He finds words as a counter to the sharp language coming at him not good enough. He wants people in jail.

    You say this isn’t as serious as Marcos? This guy has a very dark mind, disjointed, split from any sense of personal responsibility for the criticism he receives. If he had guns, I sure wouldn’t trust him not to shoot.

    The cases you cite where you have been maliciously accused of things is also interesting. I think the standard for libel cannot be hurt feelings. Nor can it be that lots of people read the lie. Indeed, such negative publicity may be a part of the reason your readership is high. So perhaps you actually BENEFIT rather than suffer harm. And proving it one way or another is difficult and simply not worth the time.

    I think we – netizens and senators – have to readjust our sense of sensitivity in the internet age. Privacy is something to work at because it no longer occurs naturally. There are too many hunters out there, from google selling slippery ads and tracking your online clicks to friends tracking you down. Or enemies who pass along untrue stories to others because they are angry or small-minded.

    The cops and judges should be engaged only for cases where there is “material economic or physical harm”. Otherwise, words should be used to counter words. If I call Senator Sotto a small-minded jerk, I cause him no economic pain, and am actually trying to use those words constructively, to encourage him to think a little bigger and more respectfully of those with high values. You know, those who believe in intellectual property rights.

    • Someone “slip it in”! The “slipped portion” was not in the bill. The slipper is a sloper.

  7. To preserve our press freedom the new cyber libel law must be amended to be consistent with the principles of the landmark 1964 U.S. Supreme Court decision, in Times vs. Sullivan, shielding the press from libel lawsuits by government officials unless they, the public officials, can prove actual malice on the part of the press.

    Likewise, the term “Press” must be clearly defined to include bloggers, columnist, and writers who use the internet as their means of communication and publishing, in addition to the traditional print media and radio/TV broadcast.

    • In Times vs. Sullivan, the court held that the burden of proof lies with the government officials to prove malice on the part of the Press, and not the other way around.

  8. @raissa, excited ako at nate tense making my blood pressure boom rising sa paghihintay ng next article mo, marami na naman akong matututuhan. having lots of heartburn waiting for you.

  9. I am just an ordinary netizen, no political bone in my body, no journalistic hair in my head, just a plain and smple working, middle-class person who is an avid user of just one social network to connect with friends and families and i am a victim of cybercrime since november of last year. Posts against my person is still visible on FB upto now. I am very happy when the law against cybercrime was signed because i can now file charges against my aggresor and am certain that will be justly compensated for the sleepless nights, mental and emotional torture, anxiety, and other demons this has given me. I am sure this law was passed not because the authors want to suppress our freedom of speech but to protect those who were abused because of too much freedom of speech in the world wide web, a place where there is no boundary and security is almost non-existent. I admit that there are provisions in the law that need to be delicately defined, but i just hope that with the raucus that the bill has caused especiall to the media world, the ordinary netizens who are victims of defamatory statements like me, in the cyberworld will not be forgotten.

    • Could you give us an idea what your case is about. Perhaps we could put our heads together on your case?

        • hi ms raissa, i sent u an email yesterday. i dont know if u have read it already or if u received it.

          but, i guess, it is now water under the bridge. Sen. Chiz Escudero has already filed a bill to repeal the online libel clause on the cybercrime law. and my tormentor will soon be rejoicing and more libelous statements coming my way…

  10. if he can lie to cebuano journalists during a Press Freedom Week forum about his sneaky insertion, make no mistake about it, he will exploit the libel clause of the cybercrime law to suppress our freedom… his grandfather must really be very dizzy from turning around in his grave tsk tsk tsk

    • Tito ” FINAGLER ” Sotto ……true @Rowena he will trick everybody about libel in the new law to suit his . unwarranted PROGRAMS as a senator.

  11. Now that Raissa is read worldwide, CPMersand Filipino netizens must be in the forefront on 2013 election.
    Let us start the campaign NOT to elect those who Voted yes on Cybercrime bil.

    Unconstitutional laws could not be passed if we have honorable and intelligent lawmakers. We must make ourselves useful by active dissemination and participation in campaigning to elect new national leaders with highest regards to the welfare of the country and the people, not merely be contented with writing our sentiments on this blog.

    DO NOT VOTE FOR REELECTIONISTS SENATORS AND THEIR RELATIVES.

    DO NOT VOTE FOR SENATORS MEMBERS OF CORRUPT FAMILIES AND DYNASTIES LIKE BINAY, ENRILE, EJERCITO/ESTRADA, VILLAR, ANGARA.

    • From the newspapers many, men and women, all like Wanbol university grads are contemplating of running for public office, senator, congressman, governor, mayor, board member,atbpa! They many are publicly known to be nothing at all! SUS MA! It’s either notoriety, emptiness, shockingnesess, name it, many got it. The race in 2013 will be a gauge: ARE PILIPINO VOTERS MATURED, GETTING MATURED or GANON PA RIN?

      For the YOUTH …start learning now and up to 2013 and thereafter. Your are the future of this country. Pag umalis na kami, kayong naman ang mag hihirap.

      Dito sila makikilala: Guapo, Maganda, Sexy, Madaldal, Makulit, Maputi, Maitim, Mataa, Mababa, Payat, Mataba, Ambisyoso at Ambisyosa, Kapatid ng Trapo, Anak ng Trapo, Asawa ng Trapo, Pinsan ng Trapo, Apo ng Trapo, Mistress ng Trapo, atbpa! Halata Walang Alam!

      KILALANIM NINYO AT WAG PANSININ.. . !

    • What do you make of Chiz Escudero? He owned up to his sloppiness and is now doing something to rectify his error.
      And what about the son of the principal sponsor, Sen. Angara? Isa pa naman siya sa mga promising politicians ni Joe America.

      LET US MAKE SURE THAT TITO SOTTO WILL NO LONGER BE THE MAJORITY FLOOR LEADER NEXT YEAR!

      • Escudero has seen and accepted his negligence. He admitted to it. He must be given credit for that.

        On the other, in my opinion Escudero, Poe Llamanzares and Legarda must declare publicly that they want their names to be listed only by one party, EITHER LP or UNA. They could not serve two masters at the same time. Undoubtledly there will be at east one minor different agenda in the campaign platform between the two parties, so these candidates have a duty to make one party choice.

        If these 3 adopted candidates would not decline inclusion from one party, I would not vote any of them because they lack the basic principles of loyalty and decency to be identified with one master. Poe and Escudero would be two of my preferred candidates while Legarda is in the bottom or outside of my top 14 candidates.

    • DO NOT VOTE FOR THE CANDIDATES OF UNA !

      Last Saturday, the Sydney Morning Herald (one of Australia’s leading newspapers) featured a story on anomalous transactions related to the purchase of search and rescue sea vessels from an Australian contractor entered into by the Estrada administration. Negotiations apparently started while Estrada was still Vice-President and already starting his campaign to run for President. (To read the full article, just google “When things go wrong at sea. – Suspicion surrounds an Australa-Philippine deal”).

      Here is what Australian businessman, Cyril Peel, who initially brokered a deal with the Ramos government had to say about Estrada, one of the “three kings” of UNA:

      “Peel had recently warned Tenix management in Australia that dealing with Estrada and his cronies would be a different matter to the formal negotiations that had taken place with the administration of Fidel Ramos, who was nearing the end of his term.”

      “I had warned the Salteris and their senior executives on many occasions in person and in writing that with Estrada becoming President things would change, the old Marcos days of kickbacks would return.”

      ‘I knew Estrada well. I was close to the people at the forefront of his political campaign. I knew about the kickbacks they had received from other parties to push through contracts once Estrada took over from (former President) Ramos. ”

      Yan ang UNA, una sa pangungurakot!

  12. since he already admiited the insertion of the online libel provision, sen. sotto can still redeem himself by personally working on repealing this law and correct it, he owes it to the people who voted for him. wake up mr. sotto! wake up!

  13. Because of Tito Sotto’s insertion in the bill, I strong believe that this person should not be voted anymore. His insertion to the bill is deception to the Filipino people..

  14. Waiting for your next article. Hoping that through your effort we can get rid of lying thiefs like sotto.