Resist the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012!

Presidential spokesperson Edwin Lacierda told Noemi Dado, a blogger, that freedom comes daw with responsibility. Or for some one to enjoy his rights, one needs to know that there is a corresponding responsibility into it.

Yes, we know that Mr. Lacierda. The thing about responsibilities is, the thing which a person needs to be responsible for must be clear and legal.

In the case of this Cybercrime Prevention Act, it is patently illegal and smells like shit.

Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution is very clear---no law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble.."

This Constitutional provision is paramount, above every other single law there is about freedoms and liberties in expression. 

Now, here comes the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 which initially seeks to punish certain acts of individuals online. The Cybercrime law has laid down several acts which, at first glance, are harmless and okey since these pertain to divergent behaviors of online users, mostly programmers and Black Hats.

However, upon closer inspection of the law, those who crafted the final version of this law, inserted a very insidious provision--that of libel. Reading the provision, one might conclude that it was as harmless and as "regular" as what we read about Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code, which punishes utterances meant to affect the reputation or name of a person or entity. These utterances should be meant to impute a crime or a commission of a crime, and it should be done "with malice".

There is no doubt---libelous statements do not have a space in the democratic society. However, the very definition of libel per se depends on so many factors, one of which is the perception of the receiver of the action.

Perception depends on so many things, one of which is basically ethno-cultural.

This law puts the accused with two counts of the same crime---a violation of a special law and a violation of a code. Meaning, you will be meted with violating Article 353 and this provision of a Republic Act---all in the same act! Is that double jeopardy or what?

Another defect of this law is allowing state security agencies to get computer data prior to filing a case against the perpetuator. This has a Martial Law flavor to it that I really don't want to delve into it much longer.

Instead of promoting the Freedom of Information Act, what this pseudo-democratic government pursued was an act further criminalizing thought, ideas and opinions.

Government's idea of democracy is patently delusional and different from what democracy is  really all about.

Democracy is when you can say what you want, do what you want but with one limitation---do it without harming others.

In the case of libel, if another person feels that he was harmed by another's statement, you can charge him.

You don't however, punish him for an act which is still in  infancy. That is pathetically absurd.

I imagine President Aquino hiding behind the cloak of this law because he is unable to hide behind the shirts of his sisters.