Internet libel in cybercrime law constitutional – SC

[reptoid]

---

I have no problem with the law except the SC should have distinguished between libel against public officials and libel against private individuals. In case of the former, it should be declared unconstitutional. The right of the public to express indignation against their officials must be encouraged not suppressed.

Look at who uses libel frequently now... it's politicians and those with deep pockets. Free press, freedom of speech... these things are being snatched from under our noses. Does anyone think Napoles (for example) could have been exposed under these circumstances? Cos I have my doubts.

[emow]

Freedom of speech is not there just for us to talk about the weather or agreeable things... freedom of speech is there to protect controversial, unconventional, and scandalous opinions or any form of expression... the recipients of the expression has the freedom to ignore them... but there is no freedom of not being offended...

To protect freedom of expression for everyone, it must cover all forms of content and expression.

[cliff_drew]

I have no problem with the law

nausab man lahi imong stance? abi ko bag para lang ni sa tsismoso/tsismosa

except the SC should have distinguished between libel against public officials and libel against private individuals.

btw, SC is not responsible to distinguish between libel against public officials and libel against private individuals, trabaho ni sa Congress/lawmakers, ang SC igo ra na mo concur or mo dissent sa nahimo nga balaod/provisions.

In case of the former, it should be declared unconstitutional. The right of the public to express indignation against their officials must be encouraged not suppressed.

former or latter? because it contradicts your statement.

[Nefarian]

nausab man lahi imong stance? abi ko bag para lang ni sa tsismoso/tsismosa



btw, SC is not responsible to distinguish between libel against public officials and libel against private individuals, trabaho ni sa Congress/lawmakers, ang SC igo ra na mo concur or mo dissent sa nahimo nga balaod/provisions.



former or latter? because it contradicts your statement.

Lol wala mausab ako stance oi mao bitaw ako jud na gi divide libel between public and private individuals. Ang former na ako pasabot ana is libel against private individuals. I am using the wrong word "unconstitutional" I meant decriminalize meaning civil punishment lang like "fines" ba kaha or anything basta dili ma priso.

[cliff_drew]

Lol wala mausab ako stance oi mao bitaw ako jud na gi divide libel between public and private individuals. Ang former na ako pasabot ana is libel against private individuals. I am using the wrong word "unconstitutional" I meant decriminalize meaning civil punishment lang like "fines" ba kaha or anything basta dili ma priso.

your statement is:

SC should have distinguished between

libel against public officials <= former
libel against private individuals <= latter

mao nakaingon ko nga ni contradict imong statement. kung ang former dapat i declared as constitutional and then the latter kay i decriminalize, agree ko ana but then again dili man gud ingon ana pagka state sa balaod mao na nga i totally disagree on the libel provision

[Nefarian]

your statement is:

SC should have distinguished between

libel against public officials <= former
libel against private individuals <= latter

mao nakaingon ko nga ni contradict imong statement. kung ang former dapat i declared as constitutional and then the latter kay i decriminalize, agree ko ana

Aw sensya latter diay dapat. Oo mao na decriminalize. It could be fines or suspension sa work etc etc.

P.S. Murag libog gusto nako mawala ng libel against Public officials so dapat "unconstitutional". So protect the private citizens but kining public individuals dapat open sa criticism.

Pasensyahan lang ninyo ning taga SC kay mga gurangs naman gud ni. Walay alamag sa modern technology mao ng pasagad nalang ug decision. Murag wala mo ask sa mga experts bahin aning computer world basta kay libel bira.

[cliff_drew]

libelous acts, defamatory words and etc are exempted from the exercise in the freedom of speech. law 101
and in connection to the cybercrime law, mao man na ilang gi prevent diba?

What I've known lately, internet libel has been punishable since 1932, the year when the Revised Penal Code was implemented, its just the cybercrime law online libel provision made it clearer regarding what 'similar means' is all about in Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code and expand the medium to the use computers / cyberspace in the commission of the crime.

P.S. Murag libog gusto nako mawala ng libel against Public officials so dapat "unconstitutional". So protect the private citizens but kining public individuals dapat open sa criticism.

naa diay existing libel protection law, gitawag ni siya ug "public figure" doctrine where fair discussion of public figures is NOT libel in the absence of actual malice. even private citizen turned public figure is not exempted.

[dartzed]

one famous quote says "give a man a mask and he will show you his true face" w/c exactly is happening in the internet..

[Lakbay Pilipino]

one famous quote says "give a man a mask and he will show you his true face" w/c exactly is happening in the internet..

pare-pareha sa gi ingon ni Julian Assange sa Fifth Estate, "Give [a man] a mask and he will tell you the truth".

libel cases has been filed to gag opposition, rather than prosecute tong mga chismoso ug chismosa. kung tagaan ka'g higayon moyawyaw anonymously, moyawyaw man jud ka.

pa-it kaayo nang kasohan ka'g libel case uy, kay anybody can be charged with it. tan-aw gani sa isa ka entity nga malicious ang imong gipangsulti bisag tinuod, pwede na ka kasohan og libel.

akong barkada gikasohan og libel kay nag file sila'g adminstrative complaint. malicious kuno ang pag file og adminstrative complaint which was corruption. kapuliki intawn sila'g baligya og sakyanan, absent sa trabaho, adto sa kapitolyo (maygani kay diri ra's cebu), para lang ma atubang ang kaso. kay kung di nimo atubangon, ma fine-an ka or mapreso. laliman ka ana?

here's a more in depth view of the law: raissa robles | Internet libel - a shocking gift to Filipinos on the eve of the 1986 Edsa People Power celebration

[Chubi]

atots biya ani ma aksyon man sad tag kabalaka ani ue.. cg biya ko'g pang troll sa net samot na sa youtube ug fb.