 |
WE'RE NO CRIMINALS Sen. Guingona (third from right), et. al., declaring Cybercrime Law illegal
|
AS A BLOGGER, I HAVE all the reasons in the world to feel suspicious about it. I haven’t read the entire transcript of this Cybercrime Law (RA 10175), but it looks more like a green-eyed monster surreptitiously lurking at my back. In fact, I don’t have any plans of reading it in its entirety. Right from the start, I already have my reservations. A blog to me is a refuge, where I could express and write freely about anything other than disrespecting someone else, which, if my suspicions were right, is the crux of this entire moratorium on cyberspace.
First of all, these are just my suspicions. Nobody really cares about it, except when you’re as serious a blogger (like me). When news of that Cybercrime Law went viral on national TV and in social media, my initial reaction really was that my days are already numbered. When you get to see a law like that spiraling out of control through the comments of these bloggers, artists, and even journalists, you get the feeling that those responsible are actually in the act of assaulting one of our basic constitutional rights (the right to freedom of speech and expression), like unleashing the writ of habeas corpus, only this time it has gone airborne.
Libel. A written defamation. In most cases considered a run-on-the-mill provision in law books merely because it seemed so futile to file a libel case in a society where freedom of expression is always guaranteed. And I was actually convinced that these types of cases don’t necessarily merit a substantial amount of time and resources, much less a probable cause, given that freedom of speech is pretty much inherent in our constitution, even without an interpretation around. The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, however, wishes to take a part of it. Apparently, though, the proponents of the said act wanted to elevate libel from a civil case into something criminal, an act that inflames the sentiments of the many, especially those who are on Facebook and Twitter.
Signed by President Aquino himself, exactly ten days before the 40th commemoration of Martial Law, RA 10175 aims to insert “responsibility” into cyberspace, targeting those, according to presidential spokesperson Edwin Lacierda, “people who are not familiar with being responsible about what they write"; a stance that has at least gained some sympathy in the Senate, particularly Senate Majority Leader Vicente Sotto III, “Libel is a crime. What do you think it is?” he said.
The libel penalty provisions, which initially caught the ire of those cyberspace practitioners, has found a chilling chain of reactions from all walks of life, from Facebook aficionados to online entrepreneurs. Some lawmakers, however, feared repercussions if and when the act becomes a law, citing innumerable scenarios potentially detrimental to the welfare of these online users. “Without a clear definition of the crime of libel and the persons liable, virtually, any person can now be charged with a crime,” Senator Teofisto Guingona III said, and admonished those who frequented these social media sites to exercise a little restraint as soon as the law is passed, “even if you just like, retweet or comment on an online update or blog post containing criticisms,” he added, one could be penalized for committing a criminal act.
One of the provisions of the said law is the authority of the Department of Justice (DOJ) to restrict or block access to computer data in the event an item (even at the level of prima facie) mentioned could be in violation of certain laws (RA 10175, Section 19), including the Revised Penal Code and other special laws about information and communications. Senator Chiz Escudero who initially supported the act (which he later backpedaled) was surprised at the aggressiveness of those reactions following the introduction of the said law, “That slipped past us,” he said and is now contemplating of filing a bill to somehow amend those harsh jail terms included in its provisions. Senators Guingona, Allan Cayetano and Escudero himself sees the Supreme Court as an option to amend the Cybercrime Law.
Even foreign dignitaries such as Asia Director at Human Rights Watch, Brad Adams, joined in the caravan of condemning the said act, “The cybercrime law needs to be repealed or replaced,” he said, thus giving the entire issue a global twist. And while filing his petition in the Supreme Court last Thursday, Senator Guingona even expressed his anxiety over the said act, “It can be reasonably expected that the general public would now be under the impression that expression of public opinion with the use of information communication technology is now already a criminal offense under the law. Our people, especially those in social media, should not be forbidden from expressing their thoughts and opinions in cyberspace whether critical or not for fear of being labeled as cybercriminals,” he said. Guingona admitted earlier that this law “throws us back to the Dark Ages.”
I guess the only thing we need to do right now is to go out on the streets and protest. But that would be giving enough leverage to those hardliners a reason for our eventual arrest and indictment. And I perfectly understand the sentiment of Anonymous Philippines, a group of hackers intentionally defacing or destroying websites of government agencies, including the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP), as an act of defiance, a protest, to what they believed as an infringement of that freedom of speech and expression.
Somehow we are being held deliberately in the air, curtailing even our right to redress online which, for quite some time, enabled us to interact freely with each other without the constraints of time, distance, and mood. Perhaps they would like us to form our own "mutual admiration club", where libel and slander and the rest of those cyber crusaders could easily eat their cake after having it forcibly on their table. If the government finds it detrimental to consider everything on social media as some sort of a battery case, then they should have at least leveled the playing field by opening the floodgates of that Freedom of Information (FOI) Bill as a counterpoint to the vigilance and readiness of cyberspace, so they would not be witch-hunting their way through online, labeling the whole business criminal, and eventually tearing the very fabric of that free speech.
Again, these are just my suspicions. Though I could never have imagined PNoy could do something like this--- sign a law that could potentially put his father (if alive) back to prison. Somehow it runs counter to the struggle his dad had championed and a letdown to the promise his mom had embodied. Well, what do I know really, I am just one of those online Facebook friends you could easily block, trying very hard to participate in the continual formation of a free society through social media, and without any fear of infamy at times. Free speech is supposed to be beyond suspicion. A blog somehow is a place for the genuine, not a pit for the jailers.
First of all, these are just my suspicions. Nobody really cares about it, except when you’re as serious a blogger (like me). When news of that Cybercrime Law went viral on national TV and in social media, my initial reaction really was that my days are already numbered. When you get to see a law like that spiraling out of control through the comments of these bloggers, artists, and even journalists, you get the feeling that those responsible are actually in the act of assaulting one of our basic constitutional rights (the right to freedom of speech and expression), like unleashing the writ of habeas corpus, only this time it has gone airborne.
Libel. A written defamation. In most cases considered a run-on-the-mill provision in law books merely because it seemed so futile to file a libel case in a society where freedom of expression is always guaranteed. And I was actually convinced that these types of cases don’t necessarily merit a substantial amount of time and resources, much less a probable cause, given that freedom of speech is pretty much inherent in our constitution, even without an interpretation around. The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, however, wishes to take a part of it. Apparently, though, the proponents of the said act wanted to elevate libel from a civil case into something criminal, an act that inflames the sentiments of the many, especially those who are on Facebook and Twitter.
Signed by President Aquino himself, exactly ten days before the 40th commemoration of Martial Law, RA 10175 aims to insert “responsibility” into cyberspace, targeting those, according to presidential spokesperson Edwin Lacierda, “people who are not familiar with being responsible about what they write"; a stance that has at least gained some sympathy in the Senate, particularly Senate Majority Leader Vicente Sotto III, “Libel is a crime. What do you think it is?” he said.
The libel penalty provisions, which initially caught the ire of those cyberspace practitioners, has found a chilling chain of reactions from all walks of life, from Facebook aficionados to online entrepreneurs. Some lawmakers, however, feared repercussions if and when the act becomes a law, citing innumerable scenarios potentially detrimental to the welfare of these online users. “Without a clear definition of the crime of libel and the persons liable, virtually, any person can now be charged with a crime,” Senator Teofisto Guingona III said, and admonished those who frequented these social media sites to exercise a little restraint as soon as the law is passed, “even if you just like, retweet or comment on an online update or blog post containing criticisms,” he added, one could be penalized for committing a criminal act.
One of the provisions of the said law is the authority of the Department of Justice (DOJ) to restrict or block access to computer data in the event an item (even at the level of prima facie) mentioned could be in violation of certain laws (RA 10175, Section 19), including the Revised Penal Code and other special laws about information and communications. Senator Chiz Escudero who initially supported the act (which he later backpedaled) was surprised at the aggressiveness of those reactions following the introduction of the said law, “That slipped past us,” he said and is now contemplating of filing a bill to somehow amend those harsh jail terms included in its provisions. Senators Guingona, Allan Cayetano and Escudero himself sees the Supreme Court as an option to amend the Cybercrime Law.
Even foreign dignitaries such as Asia Director at Human Rights Watch, Brad Adams, joined in the caravan of condemning the said act, “The cybercrime law needs to be repealed or replaced,” he said, thus giving the entire issue a global twist. And while filing his petition in the Supreme Court last Thursday, Senator Guingona even expressed his anxiety over the said act, “It can be reasonably expected that the general public would now be under the impression that expression of public opinion with the use of information communication technology is now already a criminal offense under the law. Our people, especially those in social media, should not be forbidden from expressing their thoughts and opinions in cyberspace whether critical or not for fear of being labeled as cybercriminals,” he said. Guingona admitted earlier that this law “throws us back to the Dark Ages.”
I guess the only thing we need to do right now is to go out on the streets and protest. But that would be giving enough leverage to those hardliners a reason for our eventual arrest and indictment. And I perfectly understand the sentiment of Anonymous Philippines, a group of hackers intentionally defacing or destroying websites of government agencies, including the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP), as an act of defiance, a protest, to what they believed as an infringement of that freedom of speech and expression.
Somehow we are being held deliberately in the air, curtailing even our right to redress online which, for quite some time, enabled us to interact freely with each other without the constraints of time, distance, and mood. Perhaps they would like us to form our own "mutual admiration club", where libel and slander and the rest of those cyber crusaders could easily eat their cake after having it forcibly on their table. If the government finds it detrimental to consider everything on social media as some sort of a battery case, then they should have at least leveled the playing field by opening the floodgates of that Freedom of Information (FOI) Bill as a counterpoint to the vigilance and readiness of cyberspace, so they would not be witch-hunting their way through online, labeling the whole business criminal, and eventually tearing the very fabric of that free speech.
Again, these are just my suspicions. Though I could never have imagined PNoy could do something like this--- sign a law that could potentially put his father (if alive) back to prison. Somehow it runs counter to the struggle his dad had championed and a letdown to the promise his mom had embodied. Well, what do I know really, I am just one of those online Facebook friends you could easily block, trying very hard to participate in the continual formation of a free society through social media, and without any fear of infamy at times. Free speech is supposed to be beyond suspicion. A blog somehow is a place for the genuine, not a pit for the jailers.
(photo: PDI)
0 (mga) komento:
Post a Comment