Approved as expected, yet still opposed!
"For sure everyone is still rejoicing after a temporary victory for civil rights, but if the system remains stubborn by playing deaf, may as well man the online barricade with full defiance."
These are the words this writer made last October 29, 2012 regarding the Temporary Restraining Order being set upon by the Supreme Court over a controversial law that was passed amidst criticism. And nowadays, had been lifted and again debated by lawmakers concerning the law itself and its controversial provisions possibly use to target critics against the system with the current administration.
These are the words this writer made last October 29, 2012 regarding the Temporary Restraining Order being set upon by the Supreme Court over a controversial law that was passed amidst criticism. And nowadays, had been lifted and again debated by lawmakers concerning the law itself and its controversial provisions possibly use to target critics against the system with the current administration.
As 2 days ago, the Supreme Court had justified the controversial RA 10175, known as the anti-Cybercrime law with its controversial provisions with the lifting its Temporary Restraining Order made last 2012 despite opposition from netizens both in Philippines and in abroad.
As according to the Philippine Star, it stated:
"Justices of the high court voted in session to declare constitutional Section 4 (c) (4) of the law, which penalizes acts of libel as defined in Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) committed through a computer system.
The SC ruled that imposition of cyber libel on the “original author of the post” is constitutional, but clarified the same is unconstitutional insofar as it penalizes those who simply receive the post and react to it.
This means only the source of a malicious e-mail, post on social media like Facebook or any website, tweet on Twitter can be held liable under RA 10175."
The said law originally had no online libel provisions until Senator Tito Sotto had put the "Online Libel" clause into it, allegedly made in response to the criticism regarding the "plagarised" speech regarding the controversial RH bill last year, in which Sotto had also opposed in it. People had described his speech as "Sottocopy", and even called him "Onion Skinned" for insisting the passage of RA 10175 and its controversial clause featured.
However, despite approval, the courts had declared unconstitutional some provisions written. As again according to the same article:
"The SC, however, struck down as unconstitutional three other assailed provisions of the law: Section 4 (c) (3), which penalizes unsolicited commercial communication; Section 12, which authorizes the collection or recording of traffic data in real-time; and Section 19, which authorizes the Department of Justice (DOJ) to restrict or block access to suspected computer data.
The magistrates voted on each of the assailed provisions, but (SC Spokesperson) Theodore Te said he was not informed as to how the voting per provision went.
RA 10175 was supposed to take effect in October 2012 but its implementation was stopped by the SC through a 120-day temporary restraining order that was extended for an indefinite period in February last year
With the SC ruling, Te explained the TRO has been automatically lifted.
“That is functus officio (of no further legal efficacy) since the case is already done. As far as the provisions that were not declared unconstitutional, the presumption of course is that they will now be enforceable because they were not affected by the declaration of the Court,” Te said."
In short, regardless of having some laws strucked down by the court, Online Libel remains at large so are the others. Much more if there are extralegal actions the system would possibly do so online, as according to Neri Colmenares (via Inquirer):
“No one should go to prison just for expressing oneself, especially on the Internet, where people express their frustration with government."
So is Vencer Crisostomo, in his twitter post:
“Under cybercrime law, tweets, likes, shares, comments crimes. Everyone under surveillance...”
This writer would call it "doublespeak" knowing that they had enacted a controversial law despite having certain provisions deemed unconstitutional. "It was not, however, clarified whether forwarding, commenting, sharing or retweeting the item could be considered a crime under the law." as what the PhilStar article stated; but despite statements justifying or insisting, still, the law will always be synonymous to the controversial clause, if not a psywar crap to be used by the so-called state.
And if to put into practice, the law may had tried to mimic those of the United States trying to intrude in everyone else's privacy, from Electronic mails, accounts in Social Media sites, even articles in online newspapers, including this writeup knowing that this writer had been dealing much with politics so as in cultural affairs this site supposedly known for.
After all, been writing for years, and still seeing the same old shit ever made by the system and its subjects, even those of its apologetics, RA 10175 was made as one of their efforts in restraining everyone criticizing the repressive policies of the state. Be it may in form of disregarding social services and education as national priorities, consistent repression in the guise of law and order, or even economic policies that blocks the way to self sufficiency and tolerates dependency on so-called foreign aid and investment; and knowing that it is like any other repressive law that is trying to put in force all for the sake of keeping the status quo, much more that it had tried to regulate the flow in cyberspace in pursuit of curbing down dissent.
The SC ruled that imposition of cyber libel on the “original author of the post” is constitutional, but clarified the same is unconstitutional insofar as it penalizes those who simply receive the post and react to it.
This means only the source of a malicious e-mail, post on social media like Facebook or any website, tweet on Twitter can be held liable under RA 10175."
The said law originally had no online libel provisions until Senator Tito Sotto had put the "Online Libel" clause into it, allegedly made in response to the criticism regarding the "plagarised" speech regarding the controversial RH bill last year, in which Sotto had also opposed in it. People had described his speech as "Sottocopy", and even called him "Onion Skinned" for insisting the passage of RA 10175 and its controversial clause featured.
However, despite approval, the courts had declared unconstitutional some provisions written. As again according to the same article:
"The SC, however, struck down as unconstitutional three other assailed provisions of the law: Section 4 (c) (3), which penalizes unsolicited commercial communication; Section 12, which authorizes the collection or recording of traffic data in real-time; and Section 19, which authorizes the Department of Justice (DOJ) to restrict or block access to suspected computer data.
The magistrates voted on each of the assailed provisions, but (SC Spokesperson) Theodore Te said he was not informed as to how the voting per provision went.
RA 10175 was supposed to take effect in October 2012 but its implementation was stopped by the SC through a 120-day temporary restraining order that was extended for an indefinite period in February last year
With the SC ruling, Te explained the TRO has been automatically lifted.
“That is functus officio (of no further legal efficacy) since the case is already done. As far as the provisions that were not declared unconstitutional, the presumption of course is that they will now be enforceable because they were not affected by the declaration of the Court,” Te said."
In short, regardless of having some laws strucked down by the court, Online Libel remains at large so are the others. Much more if there are extralegal actions the system would possibly do so online, as according to Neri Colmenares (via Inquirer):
“No one should go to prison just for expressing oneself, especially on the Internet, where people express their frustration with government."
So is Vencer Crisostomo, in his twitter post:
“Under cybercrime law, tweets, likes, shares, comments crimes. Everyone under surveillance...”
This writer would call it "doublespeak" knowing that they had enacted a controversial law despite having certain provisions deemed unconstitutional. "It was not, however, clarified whether forwarding, commenting, sharing or retweeting the item could be considered a crime under the law." as what the PhilStar article stated; but despite statements justifying or insisting, still, the law will always be synonymous to the controversial clause, if not a psywar crap to be used by the so-called state.
And if to put into practice, the law may had tried to mimic those of the United States trying to intrude in everyone else's privacy, from Electronic mails, accounts in Social Media sites, even articles in online newspapers, including this writeup knowing that this writer had been dealing much with politics so as in cultural affairs this site supposedly known for.
After all, been writing for years, and still seeing the same old shit ever made by the system and its subjects, even those of its apologetics, RA 10175 was made as one of their efforts in restraining everyone criticizing the repressive policies of the state. Be it may in form of disregarding social services and education as national priorities, consistent repression in the guise of law and order, or even economic policies that blocks the way to self sufficiency and tolerates dependency on so-called foreign aid and investment; and knowing that it is like any other repressive law that is trying to put in force all for the sake of keeping the status quo, much more that it had tried to regulate the flow in cyberspace in pursuit of curbing down dissent.
Well, and if that's the case, then it is indeed right to say to these people on high "to hell with them" and "Fuck You!" since everyone, despite rejoicing last year having that kind of law restrained, had also expected that same issue resurface with the system insisting to revive and use those controversial provisions given such as that so-called online libel insisted by Sotto et al. And with that damn Cybercrime law been insisted by the order to enforce against child pornography, phishing and credit card theft, quite nice though to have an effort to create the said law, but for reality's sake, there's the law against violence against women and children, on bank secrecy, and other laws that may find redundant with the passage of a law that encompass the same intentions. For sure one remembered that they are toying with the idea of having a "Freedom" of "gaining access to government information" as well as "decriminalizing libel", so how come these aren't been fulfilled and instead having everyone restrained from exposing and opposing?
And using libel as its alibi, it may possibly include those against possible "online subversion", knowing that most people who had opposed the said law are also against the status quo whom tolerated corruption, disenfranchisement and countless repression. Whether it is from Pixel offensive with its facts and figures given, or those from Showbiz Government with its politically-incorrect statements.
And using libel as its alibi, it may possibly include those against possible "online subversion", knowing that most people who had opposed the said law are also against the status quo whom tolerated corruption, disenfranchisement and countless repression. Whether it is from Pixel offensive with its facts and figures given, or those from Showbiz Government with its politically-incorrect statements.
That somehow for a rotten system, onion skinned indeed, does constitute what they think of as libelous and subversive.
Yes, libelous and subversive for it is the people had been sickening tired of the status quo.
Yes, libelous and subversivefor it is the people had wanted a real change that requires a major overhaul and not a series of so-called "repairs".
Yes, libelous and subversive for it is the people, sovereign as according to the so-called law of the land acknowledges that right, and that is the right to rebel. Rebel against the system in various forms, including those online that speaks much of truth, truth that is contrary to various personal bullshit insisted, denied, or justified by the system against its so-called subjects.
And therefore, it is necessary for the people to vent rage against the order who is trying to gag everyone who has the right, as a sovereign to criticize against their policies up to their bullshitty, corrupt persona as maintainers of status quo.
Thus, despite being approved as expected, the people rather man the barricades and oppose no matter what the outcome is. Freedom of speech may had limitations, but still there is a right for everyone to oppose in it.
Again, may as well man the online barricades, this time stronger.