 |
| Source: dailyopinioninternational.com |
When the Supreme Court decided to
uphold the anti-cybercrime law, netizens were fast to decry the decision as an
erosion of our fundamental right to free speech and paving the way for online
martial rule. This issue assumes much
relevance at a time when we celebrate the 28th year anniversary of
the EDSA People Power Revolution that toppled the Marcos dictatorship.
Those who lived through the
Martial Law years know that they could only criticize Marcos and the government
in hushed tones, lest they be the target of the dreaded ASSO (Arrest, Search
and Seizure Order) by the state’s security forces. This could mean being incarcerated without
charges or worse, joining the ranks of the desaparecidos
or those who disappeared and never to be heard from again.
The 1986 People Power revolution
ended this garrison state and with it came the restoration of our cherished
freedoms, particularly our freedom of speech and expression which is now
enshrined in Article 3, Section 4 of the Constitution. It prohibits Congress from making any law
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.
The advent of modern technology
even expanded the exercise of this freedom by providing us the medium of the
cyberspace where we can vent our frustrations with the government and its
officials or cast our criticisms and disgusts.
Imagine if tweeter or facebook were already existing during the time of
Marcos. The authorities would probably be spending countless hours tracking
emails, tweets and status updates adverse to Marcos and his cohorts.
One only needs to read the
papers, listen to the radio, watch the TV, surf the internet, browse facebook
or read tweets to see that our freedom of speech is still very much intact –
and we no longer have to criticize the government in bated breath. 28 years later we can still speak freely
against the government and our public officials without fear of punishment.
And what about the
anti-cybercrime law that punishes online libel?
Did it not remove or downgrade our free speech right with the connivance
of the Supreme Court? There is so much
misinformation circulating the web about this.
Freedom of speech is not absolute.
The state can legitimately prohibit speech that is libelous, obscene,
incites lawlessness, or is in the nature of fighting words (those that by their
very utterance inflict injury, incite lawlessness, hatred or violence). These are unprotected speeches that the state
may validly regulate.
Libel, which is the utterance of
defamatory words that destroy or injure another’s character or reputation, has
always been punished even before the enactment of the anti-cybercrime law. What the anti-cybercrime law merely did is
recognize the internet as a means by which libel may be committed or as a
medium where defamatory words can be published.
If a statement is libelous when made on a newspaper, radio or television
or when uttered orally, it does not become less libelous when made on the
internet.
The anti-cybercrime law does not
punish protected speech. By importing
the definition of libel under the Revised Penal Code, the jurisprudence
outlining the acts punishable when the defamatory remarks are made against a
private individual and when made against a public official or figure are also
imported. Thus, speech critical of a
public official or figure, even if defamatory, remains protected if made
without malice and, therefore, cannot be punished as libel.
Those who say that the
anti-cybercrime law will stifle free speech are clearly making false and
misleading statements. The criticism of
official conduct, condemnation of malfeasance in public office or denunciation of
any wrongdoing by our public officials
remain part of our protected speech and nowhere under the
anti-cybercrime law, or in the Supreme Court’s decision, has this been made a
punishable act.
Posts
