20 reason why i love the philippines

[Crimson_Viper]

---

ka sweet nila uy.. exchanging likes.. i ♥ pinas najud ay.. hehehe

[Mongsky]

OT:

Thank you for asking....

Cebu People versus Jimmy and Channelfix Libel Case

Reason:
Defamation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Defamation—also called calumny, vilification, traducement, slander (for transitory statements), and libel (for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)—is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image. This can be also any disparaging statement made by one person about another, which is communicated or published. It is usually a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed (the claimant).[1]

In common law jurisdictions, slander refers to a malicious, false,[2][not specific enough to verify] and defamatory spoken statement or report, while libel refers to any other form of communication such as written words or images.[3] Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism. Related to defamation is public disclosure of private facts, which arises where one person reveals information that is not of public concern, and the release of which would offend a reasonable person. "Unlike [with] libel, truth is not a defense for invasion of privacy.

-----------------------

Jimmy and Channelfix is guilty..
Jimmy apologize to "offended" individuals.."invasion of privacy" (destrcutive video of person w/o permission).

Cebu Govt. and people USED on making the video.will benifit from these...
Magbayad ang mga nagka utang!

If you can prove Jimmy's statement to be "False" then you can have a libel case.. Am I correct?
Maybe, you will now understand why a libel case is pointless.

Ask Arnold Clavio..

[yanong_banikanhon]

If you can prove Jimmy's statement to be "False" then you can have a libel case.. Am I correct?

I think you are wrong. Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code says:

Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it be true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown...

***akoa ang emphasis

If Jimmy's intention was good, ni-file unta siya'g formal complaints to Larsian Store, Megavalue Drugstore, etc..But he didn't. That's what made his act malicious. So yes, sa ako lang panan-aw, pwedeng makasuhan og patong2x nga libel si Jimmy kun kursunada gyud ning mga tag-iya aning mga kompanyaha.

Samtan pa nga wala siya'y legal permit nga mag-work sa pinas kay adto rang July 2011 na-expire ang iyang work permit sa Bigfoot, hehehe...makaluluoy gyud ning kanoa kun tinud-on.

[Mongsky]

I think you are wrong. Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code says:

Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it be true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown...

Nganu kaha wala man mo file ug libel case ang Cebu City Government? o ang mga companies nga gihisgutan ni kiybordwaryur?

Dili ko sweto ug balaod.. pero tan-aw nako lisod kaau ni nga libel case..
Dili pud intresado ang gobyerno base sa ilang reaksyon..
Murag kamong rang duha ni kiybordwaryur ang intresado.
Kamo daw file ug libel case mga Sir vs. Jimmy ug modaog ba mo.... para lang ma prove nato inyong argument.

Wala ko mag ingon nga maau to ang gibuhat ni Jimmy. Valid ang iyang mga reklamo pero dili maau iyang means pagpadayag sa maong mga reklamo.

Tingale dapat pareha ta ug pang hona2x sa DOT. Think Positive mga Sir.

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/162941/...s-valid-points

[yanong_banikanhon]

^^ Wala ta nasayud unsay plano aning mga kompanyaha, bay. Basta sa ako tan-aw, lig-on ang libel case labina kay daghan gyud maka-recognize sa mga company/establishment nga gipakita sa video.

Sa Corpus vs. Cuaderno, Sr. (16 SCRA 807), mao ni gisulti sa Supreme Court:

"in order to maintain a libel suit, it is essential that the victim be identifiable (People vs. Monton, L-16772, November 30, 1962), although it is not necessary that he be named (19 A.L.R. 116)."

But again, it is just my two cents. Based ra pud sa atong ma-research sa internet.

[yanong_banikanhon]

Kamo daw file ug libel case mga Sir vs. Jimmy ug modaog ba mo...

Dili man ko maka-file og libel kay dili man ako ang tag-iya sa Larsian or Megavalue drug store...So walay sense ng imong comment sa taas. Hehe...Igo ta lang kang gipasabot nga nasayop ka sa imong pangagpas nga walay libel nga kaso kay 'tinuod' man, matud nimo, ang gipangsulti/gipakita sa video. Dili ang pagkatinuod sa gisulti maoy basehan anang libel case kundili ang non-existence of good/justifiable intention(s).

[Mongsky]

Dili man ko maka-file og libel kay dili man ako ang tag-iya sa Larsian or Megavalue drug store...So walay sense ng imong comment sa taas. Hehe...Igo ta lang kang gipasabot nga nasayop ka sa imong pangagpas nga walay libel nga kaso kay 'tinuod' man, matud nimo, ang gipangsulti/gipakita sa video. Dili ang pagkatinuod sa gisulti maoy basehan anang libel case kundili ang non-existence of good/justifiable intention(s).

Anha ra diay na magdaog sa good/justifiable intentions. Unsa kahay intention nila pagbuhat ato nga 2 ka video?

Let's just wait and see if a libel case will be filed by those companies.

[yanong_banikanhon]

Unsa kahay intention nila pagbuhat ato nga 2 ka video?

Isn't it obvious? From the channelfix fb page:

ChannelFix: ...we launched ONE WEEK ago...In the meantime we definitely apologize as we didn't expect the overnite success by any means.

An FB user: Very very clever way indeed to launch a video channel. What an overnight success indeed!


By the way, it looks like channelfix is not registered in DTI. A search using 'CHANNELFIX' as keyword here: https://www.bnrs.dti.gov.ph/web/guest/search

returns no result.

[Mongsky]

Isn't it obvious? From the channelfix fb page:

ChannelFix: ...we launched ONE WEEK ago...In the meantime we definitely apologize as we didn't expect the overnite success by any means.

An FB user: Very very clever way indeed to launch a video channel. What an overnight success indeed!


By the way, it looks like channelfix is not registered in DTI. A search using 'CHANNELFIX' as keyword here: https://www.bnrs.dti.gov.ph/web/guest/search

returns no result.

You know who owns Channelfix? Is Jimmy one of them or just a hired talent for that video?

I have no idea on which video became viral. Was it the one on the channelfix website or the one uploaded on youtube?

Indeed, very clever.. But, We have to accept the fact that we're the one's who put their channel on the pedestal out of curiosity and hate.

[yanong_banikanhon]

You know who owns Channelfix?

You don't know?

Graham Cvimar, owner of Channelfix.com that hosted the controversial video...

src: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/165633/...-then-lies-low

Is Jimmy one of them or just a hired talent for that video?

He is not just a talent for that video. He is one of them.

Cvimar said Siezcka was a freelancer and contributor of the site, which he said screens or vets all material before posting them online.

src: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/165633/...-then-lies-low

Still not satisfied? Feel free to email him at jimmy@channelfix.com

I have no idea on which video became viral. Was it the one on the channelfix website or the one uploaded on youtube?

Is the video uploaded on youtube not the one with channelfix logo and not with embedded channelfix ads every few seconds?