MERGED: All about Anti-Cybercrime Law, related issues and developments

[Ronzkie23]

---

TS, 2nd thread nman ni nimo about the same topic, anti-cybercrime law.. imo rabang biyaan..

https://www.istorya.net/forums/politi...cannot-do.html

aw sorry.. thanks for informing me.. anyway paki close nlng ko ani mods.. thanks!!

[bobbyb]

Mag dictador gyud lagi ni si Abnoy!

Mao na ni ang sugod... mag tapok na gani ni silang mga self-righteous ug self-absorbed Tiwas gyud ta aning tanan.

[FAQ]

we're not trying a case here. we're talking about getting sued for libel.

unfortunately, it is the alleged victim who will decide if there was MALICE or not.

i have friends who got sued for libel for filing administrative charges against the alleged "victim" in a certain institution. they alleged that the person violated graft and corruption and submitted evidences for the adminstrative body to decide. most likely the case will be dismissed kay filing of administrative charges is simply filing administrative charges! not some unproven conspiracy theory that the complainants were out to malign the reputation of the said "victim". the point again is, the "victim" can file a libel under article 355 of our revised penal code even with such hogwash reason as this.

second example: case ni Pacquiao. an online journalist posted pronouncements of the Highway Patrol Group saying that Pacquiao was involved in a car syndicate. the journalist was sued for libel by Pacquiao! note this, the journalist was merely reporting facts. of course the case was dismissed, but that's not the point. the point is, he was accused of libel.

though i've not been through a case of libel, i've shared my friends' anguish and hassle of getting sued for libel. you have to appear in court, you have to pay for a lawyer, sell your car, and all those stupid things that in the first place, shouldn't have happened to you!

just the mere fact of getting sued for libel will gag and silence you. libel cases filed in the Philippines, according to Raissa Robles' post, "...are mostly not meant to be won. These are mostly filed in order to create a chilling effect on other reporters and to make the accused journalist’s life harder." karun, nga apil na online, tanang netizens - from bloggers to istorya forumers to facebookers, will be subject to harassment.

and last point, ma file-an japon ka'g libel bisag tinuod ang imong gi ingon. here's the text lifted from the revised penal code,
"Art. 354. Requirement for publicity. — Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it be true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown..." (emphasis mine)

here's an example and quoting again Raissa Roble's post,

"Under Philippine libel law, truth is not a defense. Something posted online may be true but the offended party could claim it is malicious. For instance, ex-FG Mike Arroyo thought that calling him fat – even if true – was malicious."

gikiha ni FG Mike Arroyo si Lito Banayo, a columnist and spokesman of Panfilo Lacson. Mi ingon si Lito Banayo nga "fat spouse" daw si FG Mike. unsay resulta? gikiha siya.

so with my example, the restaurant could sue me for libel for tweeting that naay ok-ok ilang lomi bisag tinuod, kay i'm insinuating nga hugawan sila nga pagka restaurant.

In this litigious society , anyone can get sued for anything . Ang point lang sa uban nga pakuratan ang kontra - labi na ang pobre ug wala kaayo'y kwarta to fund a legal counsel . Kahibaw sila nga their case has an insufficient legal justification for the charge . Ang ilang point is to give them a hard time and put them in a difficult situation .

I haven't read the contents of the "Anti-Cybercrime Law" but naka kita bitaw ka sa reaction sa mga internet citizens against ni Wild Barney nga gi latos ug mga slanderous comments sa online . I'm not protecting the doing of Wild Barney against the MMDA officer but it's time nga ma responsible and face sa mga consequences sa ilang mga libelous postings sa online .

[P-Chan]

Thanks for sharing... ang na sabtan nako ana cybecrime bill is intercepting transmission, child porno, hacking and ect...

News of the passing of the Anti-Cybercrime Law sent shivers to a lot of people, and for good reason. There’s also a lot of confusion about what people can or cannot say or do because of this law. We’ll try to outline this for you.
Here are some samples we thought could help you figure out this new law:

Can Do: You can bash an idea — like “That is a stupid idea!“.
Cannot Do: You cannot bash a person — like “You’re a stupid f*ck!“.

what if it's the truth?? the freedom of speech and expression is ON pa man kaha?

for example katong nag sottocopy sah blogger nya ingan lang ug "Why should I quote a blogger?"... di buh nah hilas?? nag katag ang evidence so di pwede ma deny kay bakakon na pud nah ang gawas... hilas (truth) + (^&%&$&%&^) <- expression...

---

under article III section 4 states(if i'm not mistaken) : No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.

[machinecult]

unsa kahay impact ani nga balaod sa ordinaryong Pilipino?

There was this analyst on ANC this morning and he said the penalty for the offender will double. If he committed libel, he would have to answer the penalty for the cyber crime and the default punishment of the offense. So instead of getting 1 year jailtime (for example) he'll have 1.5 or 2 years. It's scary if opinions now might be charged for libel even from blogs and social networking. This law is very susceptible to exaggerated accounts, and is very dangerous to our freedom. If some people upstairs don't want to be criticized then this law comes in handy.

[gunsky]

specific mani nga thread

[FAQ]

There was this analyst on ANC this morning and he said the penalty for the offender will double. If he committed libel, he would have to answer the penalty for the cyber crime and the default punishment of the offense. So instead of getting 1 year jailtime (for example) he'll have 1.5 or 2 years. It's scary if opinions now might be charged for libel even from blogs and social networking. This law is very susceptible to exaggerated accounts, and is very dangerous to our freedom. If some people upstairs don't want to be criticized then this law comes in handy.

Yikes , Philippines is heading to a totalitarian regime ... Waaaaaatch out !

[balipseyev]

For congressmans, no wonder...

[reptoid]

It's a double whammy of civil and criminal law both of which can be used to oppress free speech and intimidate critics. BBC News has reported:

"Free press threat?

Although the law talks specifically about cybercrime, Philippine media organisations have expressed concerns that it may also be used to curb press freedom because it lists internet libel as cybercrime.

According to the act, someone found guilty of libellous comments online, including comments made on social networks and blogs, could be jailed for up to 12 years with no possibility of parole".


We were expecting transparency and we get this!

[cliff_drew]

According to the act, someone found guilty of libellous comments online, including comments made on social networks and blogs, could be jailed for up to 12 years with no possibility of parole".

Where did BBC got this info? AFAIK, there was no penalty mentioned.