"Decriminalizing Libel" What is YOUR stand?

[posporoseller]

---

In favor, of course. Words are just words, and will never be ever knives. And with regards to the media being true, i always incline my thoughts with Michel Foucault's.

[LytSlpr]

I am for decriminalizing libel so that politicians, celebrities and people in high places cannot hide under this cloak.

If someone will give a malicious statement in any form of media, the person accused could always have it challenged in court or let the accuser produce proof or evidence.

For me, decriminalizing libel has more pros than cons.

But I don't think Philippine culture and level of intelligence, generally is not ready for this, no offense meant.

[cottonmouth]

I am for decriminalizing libel so that politicians, celebrities and people in high places cannot hide under this cloak.

If someone will give a malicious statement in any form of media, the person accused could always have it challenged in court or let the accuser produce proof or evidence.

.

I don't get you. Once you decriminalized LIBEL, there's no going to the courts anymore. It will be your tongue against my tongue: no evidence needed.

The Libel law is your only protection against malicious words your good neighbor plans to throw to you. Without it, you're bare naked.

[KE-25]

Keep it the way it is , seems like a healthy excercise of legalities

[babyvenice101]

i would say No to it... kung mahitabo ni.. lisod na mugara na noon ang media...

we have to accept the fact nga ang media makainfluence gyud sa mga tao... ma-influence man gani ang mga educado nga nanan-aw tv unsa nakaha ang mga walay grado..

media experts can always influence us.. they know how to make false stories true... lisod na...

yes, freedom of speech.. but we have to remember.. " your freedom ends where my freedom begins.."

[DrE]

For those na for decriminalizing libel, huwata lang ninyo na kamo tirahan ug istorya nga false, defamatory and dili needed ug proof. You are all under the illusion that ALL people(media or otherwise) will use the freedom of speech responsibly. I suggest you wake up.

[LytSlpr]

I don't get you. Once you decriminalized LIBEL, there's no going to the courts anymore. It will be your tongue against my tongue: no evidence needed.

The Libel law is your only protection against malicious words your good neighbor plans to throw to you. Without it, you're bare naked.

I believe my first post already explained it. Here in the United States, you throw a libel case and people will laugh at you. Go figure...

Do politicians or celebrities here file libel cases? They don't! The reason IS the answer.

[joshua259]

FYI: For my side libel is used and abused by the government. Its a tool used by the people in power to silence the media, since the media are the bearers of truth or.. shall I say, the watchdogs of corruption.

and media can also protect the corrupt. they also have the power to change the truth and publish false statements and issues. we cannot change the fact that the media can also be the cause for libel cases

i am not against the media but this is reality. every media people has a price whether it is good or bad.

[Minuano27]

Article 19 of the civil code of the Philippines states that media personnel should act with justice to observe honesty and good faith when exercising his/her rights and while performing his/her duties

Article 26 of the civil code of the Philippines SHOULD remind media personnel of their duty to respect the dignity, personality, privacy, and peace of mind of others, otherwise, they may be held liable for damages for violations.

I knew someone would eventually reply with this kind of answer.

Decriminalizing libel does not mean that a person who has been libeled by the media can no longer seek redress for the wrong done to him/her. The victim has the remedy of filing an action for damages based on the Civil Code of the Philippines, such as Article 19 and Article 26.

So I shall quote myself

Let's clarify this, because what you're saying about Articles 19 and 26 of the Civil Code is misleading. These Articles actually DO NOT contain any reference to the media.

Article 19 is part of the "abuse of rights" provisions of the Civil Code that will give you the right to sue for damages as long as the conditions/requirements in those articles are present. This is what it actually reads:

ARTICLE 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.

Article 26 is similar to Article 19, but is more specific:

ARTICLE 26. Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons. The following and similar acts, though they may not constitute a criminal offense, shall produce a cause of action for damages, prevention and other relief:
(1) Prying into the privacy of another's residence;
(2) Meddling with or disturbing the private life or family relations of another;
(3) Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friends;
(4) Vexing or humiliating another on account of his religious beliefs, lowly station in life, place of birth, physical defect, or other personal condition.

Note that Article 26 is specifically targeted at those acts, which if you think about it, would be more applicable to your nosy neighbors or "mga intregero".

Don't forget that under the Penal Code provisions on libel, the civil aspect of the case (i.e., for damages) is already included once the criminal case is filed. Don't forget also that the Supreme Court issued a Circular that effectively "decriminalizes" libel by instructing Judges to impose only the penalty of fine and not imprisonment.

Finally, don't forget that libel laws were instituted to protect the ordinary citizen against the power of the media. Without it, there's nothing to stop the media from libeling you, me or anyone else with impunity.

It seems to me that this "decriminalizing" was brought up to protect media people who are critical of government officials or "high-profile personalities" (Mike Arroyo, anyone?). Libel law, however, also applies to me, you and everyone else. Take out the criminal penalties and you won't have any means of redress for the libel committed against you.

They should just leave things as they are. What most people probably don't know is that when it comes to government officials or high-profile personalities, the Supreme Court decisions consider them to be "public figures" who must prove ACTUAL MALICE on the part of the accused. This means that there must be proof that the statement is false AND the accused knew it be false but despite this, made the libelous statement. Proving actual malice is NOT an easy thing to do. So, the standard to convict is higher when it comes to them. If the accused media person did his/her job properly, then by and large, he/she can't be convicted.

[cottonmouth]

I believe my first post already explained it. Here in the United States, you throw a libel case and people will laugh at you. Go figure...

Do politicians or celebrities here file libel cases? They don't! The reason IS the answer.

The US is not the Philippines. Certainly a run away tongue is the last thing this country needs. We have already imported a lot of bad cultures from your beloved country and we don't want anything more. If you enjoyed the way your media exaggerate everything there... then enjoy it, just don't bring it to the Philippines. We want american money but not the culture.