Tuesday, October 2, 2012

What the RH Bill and Cybercrime Prevention Law have in common



I’ve been called dumb, stupid, closed-minded, etc. It usually happens when I sound to be talking against something that is popular.  Though the fact is I do not speak against something not for the sake of just being against it. I just try to look for balance. Most of the time, I’m really not against it but just figuring out the pros and cons. But for some it’s like either you accept it or you’re a moron. For them, some things are like sweet candy that we can readily eat, enjoy, swallow and forget about anything. For the objective of these things are good and it’s for the benefit of everybody. Including me and you. There are a lot of things created for a righteous goal but not all means are acceptable. This is something difficult for most people to understand. That is until something surprise almost everybody and it includes both sides.


According to some law experts, the Cybercrime Prevention Law includes the online libel. It means that a person can be penalized by fines and jail terms if found to have committed defamation of another person “using the internet and any other similar means which may be devised in the future”. That’s according to Sec. 4 of the said law.  A lot of people are protesting it being deemed as an enemy of freedom of speech. Libel laws in our country criminalize defamation and malicious discredit of another person’s reputation. And defamation does not always mean telling lies. It could also be of speaking the truth but having no good motives.  And most reason given by people who are against it is that this specific part of the Cybercrime law is vague. And that this will be in danger of being abused by some people. And also, being “malicious” and “discrediting” will mostly depend on each people’s perception. And allegedly, this might threaten the Filipinos right to opinion and thus curtailing freedom of expression.


A Facebook profile photo.



And unknown to some, or probably to many, there was a similar controversial clause found in the RH bill. I heard it was removed. Or maybe not but I’m sure it was there. You can check it on this link.  On Sec. 28(e) of the bill, it was stated there that “any person who maliciously engages in disinformation about the intent or provisions of this Act” will be penalized thru Sec. 29 of the bill. Either fined or a jail term. The “act” pertains to the RH bill. 


Like what was mentioned on this other blog post, there are those among us who talk about one thing but do the opposite. Like how most people are currently exerting a lot of energy to fight and to reverse the implementation of cybercrime law especially that specific clause that non-verbally includes “online libel” while many of them totally embraced the RH bill version that included the clause with the similar logic of penalizing people due to “disinformation”. And also those who were angered at the swift passing of the Cybercrime law but raised brows due to the “delay” of voting for the RH bill. The “delay” that makes it possible for our lawmakers to remove clauses and provisions which they may see as unnecessary. Just like the “disinformation” prohibition part and then the others.  And probably to avoid the same thing which is now happening around the Cybercrime Law.


Nice shirt design



Now a lot of us are crying out loud and blaming anybody we could blame. That is bound to happen if someone looks at personalities rather than the issues. And using emotions rather than logic. We'll contradict even our own selves. But never would we find fault of our own. 


For some, it’s still about the RH bill. But no it’s not. It’s much worse. It’s uglier. But unless we stop focusing on personalities, side issues, etc, we’ll continue being sidetracked, divided, weak and less effective. One thing I’m thankful about this Cybercrime Law is that people now realize how hard it is to accept certain freedom being taken away. Now most of us are hurting. Crying like caged birds. Whichever side you are, almost everyone is now angry.  Almost everyone is now up in arms. But then again,where were you when we were fighting for that same freedom when it was threatened by the RH bill?





(sources are found by clicking on the hyperlinks)



15 comments:

  1. I believe there were actually sections in the Cybercrime Prevention Law that is good and beneficial to everyone. I just think they need to review the law more thoroughly before passing it because there are still some questionable items. They also need to consider our rights. Politicians are going to use this law as their scapegoat for their wrong doings and prosecute those they believe can stain their image. Arrg, POlitics!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes there are. And also, libel online is not new. Haven't we heard about celebrities suing each other of libel because of tweets and online posts?

      Thanks for the comment bro.

      Delete
  2. well, gaya nga nung nai-post kong comment sa latest blog entry ko, may section dito sa batas na ito na pabor ako like yung protection natin against online theft, hacking and child pornography. ang di ko lang talaga nagustuhan dito is yung part na nilagyan pa ng "Libel" thingy which hinders our freedom of speech saka ung part na magbibigay laya sa mga pulis or nbi na kalkalin yung mga personal infos sa account mo.

    just my two cents!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. agree. just like any other laws or bills, may mga magagandang points talaga po ito. Thanks Fiel.

      Delete
  3. balita ko si sotto ang nag-insert ng "libel" part..tsk tsk..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. allegedly, siya nga raw po ang nakagawa ng paraan para makapasok yung online libel. Although sabi ko nga dun sa isang comment ko, online libel is not new. ask the celebrities na nagdedemandahan dahil lang sa tweets ng kaaway nilang artista.

      and also, even if he's the one who inserted it, may iba ding pumirma. At may ibang nag apruba. Legislation naman po is a process and hindi lulusot kung siya lang po ang may gusto at naniniwalang dapat andun yon. Thanks pinkline :)

      Delete
  4. hindi ko gaanong natutukan ito kaya limitado ang alam ko dito.

    ang alam ko lang is umusad ang Pinas ng paurong nung ipinasa ang batas na ito. sa buong mundo ang lahat ay gumagawa ng hakbang para ide-criminalize ang libel. meaning, magiging civil case na lang siya. sa batas na to, lalong grumabe ang criminal punishment ng libel. and that's stupid!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Wala ata preng nakatutok sa issue kasi lahat nagulat. Umingay na lang nung naipasa na. hehehehe.

    tama ka.Pinas na lang nga ang alam kong crime pa ring tinuturing ang libel. Agree ako dapat civil case na lang kesa alisin din totally. Wala rin naman kasing absolute freedom lalo na kung nakakaapak din sa karapatan ng iba.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Sabi ko nga at sinasabi ko sa mga nakakausap ko, marami din namang points ang law na ito which are really beneficial for people.. The problem is, people only focuses on the libel part. Pero para sakin, it can also be further divided into good and bad points. Well, people go here and there making false accusations and hearsay about a person, and I think that it is also a human right to live with a clean name.. However, the downside is, what if what these people are saying is true? Moreover, the cost for doing such is for me, quite heavy.

    Ang problema kasi, natira sya ng sobra nung mangopya sya, thus making him insert the libel part..

    Kagaya ng ibang law, may mga parts nga na dapat i-revise dito. Pero meron ding mga bagay na pwedeng i-preserve. Hay, we the sovereign people of the Republic of the Philippines. Haha.. Preamble daw. LOLs God bless the Philippines!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. yung iba nga kasi, isa lang ang tinitingnan. matagal na nating kailangan ang batas na ito. Pero tulad ng sinabi mo, dun lang nagfofocus ang marami sa iisang part.

      Delete
  7. Siguro, what should happen is that magkaroon na lang ng public review. Isa-isahin ang punto ng batas na iyan. Tapos, there should multisectoral representatives during the public review.

    But definitely, yung libel should be included. Kung may libel sa print publications, bakit mawawala ito online? What makes online publications different from the printed ones? Yung nga lang, himayin nang mabuti at tingnan kung anong mga punto ang inaangalan ng mga tao.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. siguro nga Ms. N, yung pagiging vague kasi nung specific clause na yun ang naging issue. And ang nakalala ay yung pagpapalaki ng ilang grupo sa issue.

      Delete
  8. on the other side ... hmm sana pinag-isipan para kasing minadali yung cybercrime law

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ayon sa notes ng senado, mukhang matagal naman pinagplanuhan at pinagdebatehan.. Nakakapagtaka lang yung iba nating senador at parang pati sila ay gulat sa nilalaman. Nakakatakot lang kasi, ilang batas na kaya ang nakalusot sa kanila na ganito ang nangyari?

      Thanks Kulapitot for dropping by.

      Delete
  9. Galing mo ser genius ka talaga. I agree with you. masyado sila nag fofocus sa isang part.Tingnan nila as a whole yang Cyber Crime Law. Unlike sa RH Law, pagtiningnan mo sya as a whole, divisive and unacceptbale talaga

    ReplyDelete

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Follow my Blog