Internet libel in cybercrime law constitutional – SC

[high_heels]

---

(Updated 1:47 p.m.) The Supreme Court has ruled that the online libel provision in the controversial Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 is constitutional, although it struck down others, including one that empowers the Department of Justice (DOJ) to restrict or block access to data violating the law.

The court, however, set several conditions with regards to the online libel provision, said SC spokesman Theodore Te, who announced the ruling in a press briefing Tuesday.

In October 2012, the high court put on hold the implementation of the law after it received 15 petitions questioning the constitutionality of some of its provisions, with various groups condemning it for purportedly threatening freedom of speech, increasing the penalties for libel, and making it easier for authorities to spy on citizens using electronic media.

The petitioners wanted the SC to strike down provisions contained in Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, and 19. Sections 4 and 5 tackle the various offenses covered under the law, including online libel, which the petitioners said violates the right to free speech.

Sections 6 and 7, meanwhile, impose a higher degree of punishment for people found guilty of libel while also allowing them to be charged separately under the Revised Penal Code for the same offense. The petitioners said this violated the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy.

The petitioners also questioned Section 19, which authorizes the DOJ to restrict or block access to data that would be found prima facie in violation of the cybercrime law. — KBK/KG, GMA News


source: Internet libel in cybercrime law constitutional – SC | SciTech | GMA News Online

[tira bens]

dba my freedom of speech tayo?

[cliff_drew]

this is a wait and see

[darsmith13]

balaod nasad pero implementation? meh

[Nefarian]

Affected ra aning mga tawo mga tsismosa/tsismoso ug pangutok. Too much cyber freedom is dangerous.

[dartzed]

when a man does not know how to solve a problem in his society that's the time when he makes LAWs..

[cliff_drew]

Affected ra aning mga tawo mga tsismosa/tsismoso ug pangutok. Too much cyber freedom is dangerous.

pfft. imo gyud gi generalize nga para ra ni sa mga tsismosa/tsismoso. anyone can be affected, mind you.

[Nefarian]

pfft. imo gyud gi generalize nga para ra ni sa mga tsismosa/tsismoso. anyone can be affected, mind you.

So kinsa may capable mobuhat ug libel?

PS: Kini klase na balaod dili naman ni new. I think SG naa na ani. Mao bitaw tong na file ug kaso tong naghilabot ni Megan Young sauna. Angay ni sa atoa kay kita walay mga disiplina.

Ngano ma worry man ta aning balaora ug kibaw ka sa imong self nga dli ka klase na mananap nga manghilabot sa isig ka tawo? So mao ng naka ingon ko mostly ang maigo ani katong mga tawong walay mabuhat sa kinabuhi kundi tsismis diri tsismis didto.

Since feeling invincible man daw kunuhay ta kay lagi naa ta behind sa atong mga tagsa2x ka lungga so ug ato ni i compare mura ni siya ug GILABTIKAN imong baba sa imong pagka tsismosa/moso.

[dartzed]

I don't see being tsismosa/tsismoso a bad thing..

[Nefarian]

I don't see being tsismosa/tsismoso a bad thing..

Sensya pero mostly sa mga away kay tungod sa dagdag/bawas sa usa ka istorya. I don't see any good outcome sa mga taong ingon ana.