The 8 Most Editor's Note Allegedly Inane Reactions to the Anti-Cybercrime Act 2012 By Kel Fabie,@mistervader
True, the recently-signed Anti-Cybercrime Bill has given a lot of people cause for alarm, but instead of curling up into a fetal position, maybe we should read up on the Act first before we applaud or condemn it. Heaven forbid we fight against the new law without knowing what it's actually about, right? Of course, it's a tad suspicious that this was approved faster than the much-needed FOI Bill, or the 15-years in-the-making RH Bill, but as they always say, "Kung gusto, may paraan. Kung ayaw, may [Editor's Note: ALLEGED] Sottohan."
That being said, while people have valid concerns about the law, there have been several reactions from all sides that are facepalm-inducing, to put it mildly. With that in mind, before the law does come into effect and I can get sued for doing this article, allow me to show you…
Cybersex is a crime now? Papaano na lang ang mga mag-asawang bansa ang pagitan? Papaano nalang nila maitatawid "yun" hehehe
The definition of "cybersex" in the law may not be common parlance, but it clearly refers to prostitution. Chapter II, section 4, paragraph C, item 1 has the words "for favour or consideration" in line with the cybersex clause. This is actually a very good way to deal with cybersex rings, which is probably why this clause refers to the act as "cybersex" despite the term having actual non-transactional connotations in daily use.
Anyway, what I'm trying to say is our government has limited resources to fully back this Cybercrime law and impl\eiment (sic) it to the fullest.
This was one of the most commonly-used non-arguments against the RH Bill, and now even pro-RH Bill people use the very same argument. Oh, please. Spare me the hypocrisy.
DIE ALREADY, YOU OLD PIECE OF HORSESHIT! RT@LasagnaSurfer : LEAVE MY INTERNET ALONE!!!!!!!!!1111111111 bit.ly/Av7yQF #cpactstrike
Remember what I said about jumping to conclusions and frothing at the mouth aimlessly? Think this solves anything? Nope. Didn't think so, either.
Cybercrime bill racket also diverts attention from President Aquino's attempts to water down Freedom of Information Act
Conspiracy theories are sooo 2001. How about we just assume the President is not the pinnacle of competence and call it a day? That's a lot less speculative than this, at least…
martial law na ulit
If we weren't in "Martial Law" before, when the Anti-Child Pornography Act and the Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act were both implemented, we still aren't now. At present, we already have internet censorship sneakily foisted upon us by these bills. China would be so proud. We're still a long way from Martial Law, though.
Also, dude, whoever you are who wrote that comment, TL;DR.
'People from all walks of life may fall prey to fraudsters and other unlawful attacks such as committing fraud, child pornography, intellectual property infringement, stealing of identities and privacy violation,' - said Mrs. Arroyo.
'You simply cannot defame a person without any basis or truth. If you do, there are consequences, as there are defenses, like good faith or it was done pursuant to a moral duty,' - Angara said in a separate text message.
Yeah, because the average blogger can easily hire a lawyer and defend himself against a libel charge, right? Angara even completely glosses over the fact that truth and basis are not valid defenses for libel in Philippine law. Also, take-a-wild-guess-which-Senator added the libel clause in the law, to begin with, and you'd realize just how convenient all of this is for politicians who don't want the people who voted them in to have a say on how they're supposed to do the job the voters are paying them to do.
Then again... Everyone seems to be worried about libel when they should be equally worried about the Takedown Clause in the Anti-Cybercrime Bill.
'In other words, the best defense against anything that would curtail our freedom of expression, be it online or off, is to express ourselves in words and deeds that are thoughtful, truthful and honest. This doesn't mean we should pull our punches. It just means we should slug it out with more finesse.'
Well-written" is so subjective a qualifier that it loses all meaning in this discussion. I certainly don't mean to undermine the knowledge base of a certified lawyer, but anyone powerful enough to sue would certainly find a way to argue against an allegedly libellous article, no matter how well-written the article in question is. And if we assumed well-written articles were safe, then it makes all of this moot and academic, because, dear Warrior Lawyer, we all know that bloggers are such excellent writers.
- Previous: 8 Superheroes who can save the Philippines
- Next: 8 easy and yummy no-carb dishes from a child genius