note: I wrote this for my Advanced College
The controversial Cybercrime Law, passed on
September 12, 2012, then suspended less than a month later, covers a variety of
crimes involving the internet and other communication
technologies. Among the punishable offenses it mentions are hacking,
spamming, online libel, cyber-squatting, cybersex, child pornography,
unsolicited commercial communication, and computer-related fraud, forgery, and
identity theft.
Cybercrime Law is the object of much protest by citizens – especially journalists and journalist unions – who believe that the libel clause therein impedes the people’s Freedom of Expression. There were a number of campaigns against its passing as a bill, including a black-out on social networking website Facebook wherein users showed their support by changing their profile pictures to a plain black image. Some users got creative and placed text on the image condemning the bill. Others replaced it with a depiction of the popular character V from the film “V for Vendetta,” who was a freedom fighter in a society run by an oppressive government.
Brad Adams, Asia Director of the US-based Human Rights Watch, was also quick to voice his disapproval. He said on the organization’s website that the law “violates Filipinos' rights to free expression and … is wholly incompatible with the Philippine government's obligations under international law.” Like the enraged media people, he was pertaining to the clause on libel, which as an independent law has also aroused protest for decriminalization.
No law is without flaw or loophole. While the majority may agree that its purpose is good, inevitably, a law will contain some specification or technicality that certain people will find unreasonable. I know first-hand that the internet is a dangerous place, and too much freedom online can give an individual the power to do terrible things – or to fall victim to terrible things. And while I understand that the law aims to curb these dangers, I do not feel that it is ready to be enforced just yet.
Cybercrime Law covers all kinds of computer-related offenses. Illegal access to and manipulation of online data should indeed be punishable by law, for the sake of private individuals and large corporations alike. People should not be able to get away with prying into others’ private online information; much less should they be allowed to make unwanted alterations or deletions on official websites for companies and offices. Illegal access to online data could also be a means of committing other crimes like theft, if, for example, a hacker manages to get hold of the victim’s credit card or other banking-related information. I do not know how the people who do this will be tracked down and captured, but I agree that serious offenders should be punished.
Other offenses mentioned in the Cybercrime Law are cybersex and child pornography. Cybersex includes sexual arousal by means of the internet, like chatting or through video calls. I do not believe that people’s private exchanges should be monitored. If they want to be intimate with each other but distance stops them from doing so, they should be left to their business. As long as it does not bother anyone else, they should be free to do it. However, if cybersex is done in a context that is harmful or offensive, like against the will of one participant, it should definitely be stopped. Any act that hurts a participant therein physically or psychologically should not be allowed, and the same goes for acts that occur without a participant’s consent. Involving children is, without question, wrong. So, this aspect of the Cybercrime Law, I agree with wholeheartedly.
Unsolicited commercial communication is also a good addition to the offenses in the Cybercrime Law. Advertisement is a necessary thing for maintaining a business, but the line must be drawn somewhere for just how much and where companies can advertise their products and services. Most people probably would not be bothered by a billboard that they encountered in a business district, or by a flyer handed to them on the street. However, promotional material sent directly to someone’s personal email address might be seen as bothersome, especially if the recipient has no interest in what is being sold to them. Such emails are of course acceptable if they were subscribed to, because then the recipient would be expecting the information. But non-subscribers should not have to be troubled with emails from strange companies that they have no particular interest in, especially in a channel where they expect to receive only important messages from familiar people.
The first three offenses discussed are the strong points of the Cybercrime Law. I find it problematic, however, how they will be enforced. I understand that the intention to eliminate these things is in the best interest of internet users, but I have doubts that law enforcement will be completely successful in finding and capturing the offenders. I am not reassured by the vague claim that there will be a special force for this purpose. It is incredibly difficult to trace people over the internet. Then, even if you have an idea of what Internet Service Provider they are using, it is not a guarantee that you will be able to pinpoint their exact location at the time that they committed the offense. Getting there and arresting them is another job entirely. These are the main reasons why I am not optimistic about those guilty of Cybercrime offenses being served justice. In this sense, the Cybercrime Law means well but may or may not come through on its promises.
Another reason not to support the Cybercrime Law is the clause on libel. Libel is constituted by remarks that are defamatory, made with malicious intent, in a publication of general circulation (in this case, the internet), and the subject of which is identifiable, if not explicitly named. It may purport to preserve the reputation of all dignified individuals, but at the end of the day, it really only works out in the favor of the minority.
Those most threatened by libel, whether in print or online, are politicians and their fellow public figures. Naturally, a private individual has his reputation to lose as well, but for him, there is less being risked since he is not running for office or maintaining a position therein. Government officials are often cast in the harsh view of the public eye, and critics are always lurking. Whether they are sincerely concerned citizens, spiteful cynics, or political opponents, any negative comments they might make can affect how the masses at large see them. This is why they feel the need to broadcast only their people-centric values, to showcase their successful projects.
The law on libel may have been written for the people, but it will not be executed with their needs in mind. It is mentioned above that seemingly ideal laws encounter the problem of enforcement. That is exactly the problem with libel laws. Their enforcement will always be biased toward the party with more money and influence, which renders the search for truth almost completely futile, because regardless of the validity of an accusation, the scales will almost always tilt in the favor of he who can afford a better lawyer. It is a hard truth to accept that as easily as votes can be bought, so can verdicts. Those who will not achieve in through bribery will likely achieve in through threats, coercion, or whatever possible form of intimidation.
More importantly, libel is oppressive to Press Freedom. Journalists, whether employed in print, radio, broadcasting, or online, have the duty to scrupulously and accurately report the news, regardless of whom it might put in a bad light. The Freedom of the Press goes hand-in-hand with the people’s right to know what is going on in their community and country. It is particularly important for their safety and their ability to make informed decisions. Journalists should not have to worry about saying something potentially damaging to a politician’s reputation if that information is definitely factual. It is in fact even more important that the people are aware of it, because a part of making informed decisions is voting come election with full knowledge of all of one’s options. As a responsible voter, one of the most important things is to be informed.
Libel laws go against the very point of good journalism: reporting a full, accurate story with all the vital details, and airing both sides in the case of a conflict. By putting a limitation on what can be reported based on what may be considered bad press, one may very well be only reporting half of a story – or, in some instances, no story at all. Even if libel laws were fairly applied, we cannot omit entire news items simply because they offer criticism rather than praise. As long as the negative press is completely truthful and criticisms are well-grounded, there should be no problem with publication, and certainly no fear from the reporter of being fined or imprisoned.
I believe that Cybercrime is a real thing, but right now, our government is not equipped with the knowledge and means to take on its serious offenders. That having been said, I do not believe that libel is a crime. Good journalism indeed calls for strict compliance with media ethics, which does include treating subjects fairly and reporting truth. In the circumstance that the truth damages the reputation of a public figure, the reporter’s duty to make the truth known still holds.
Nonetheless, this does not give a journalist – or anyone, for that matter – the right to publicly attack a public figure or a private individual. This is where the important differentiation between defamation and criticism comes in. Defamation is abusive; criticism is constructive. You can call a friend lazy, or you can tell that friend that some self-discipline would probably help them be more productive and feel more accomplished. One is insulting and the other is encouraging. Reporters, those they report about, and the target audience for their reports should be wary of the difference between the two.
As a student, journalist, and citizen, I cannot offer my full support for the Cybercrime Law. It could do with a lot of revision, if not complete removal so that the government can formulate a new, better law of similar nature. In the meantime, I will continue to write, post, Tweet, and blog in the same outspoken manner with which I speak. If this makes me guilty of Cybercrime, then – and I say this with neither humor nor spite – catch me if you can.
No comments:
Post a Comment