Tonight a group of concerned Filipinos bumped heads to discuss the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. We met online via Google+ Hangouts, and the video archive is posted here. Present were lawyers, businessmen, journalists, company employees — netizens all. And those who couldn’t make it to the roundtable discussion monitored the feed on Twitter via the #cybercrimelaw hashtag, and sent in their questions as well.
It was an eye-opener for me, especially the part when Atty. JJ Disini explained that libelous comments posted on a moderated forum (blog, bulletin board) can result in the owner of the forum being liable for libel as well.
To me, this means that under RA10175 there is intermediary liability!
At one point during the roundtable, I tried to bring to everyone’s attention the experience of our Southeast Asian neighbors, especially Thailand with their repressive Computer Crime Act and lèse majesté laws. One of the roundtable participants said that this couldn’t happen in the Philippines because Thailand had a king and we had an elected president. He had previously claimed that our RA10175 experience was unique in the region.
The form of government is immaterial. Thailand is, in fact, a constitutional monarchy (it is not the Thai king who rules the land). They have a constitution where freedom of expression is enshrined, but is not respected by Thai authorities who silence dissent using the Computer Crime Act, which is very akin to RA10175.
We may not have a law that bars us from ever saying anything negative about our president, but some of the provisions of RA10175 do open up avenues for repression and loss of freedom.
This won’t be the last roundtable discussion on the cybercrime law. I hope in the following sessions, we’ll have more thoughtful participation as we had tonight.
30 September 2012 • 1:13 pm
Thailand’s Lese Majeste law is more ancient and encompassing than all laws that limit expression in that Kingdom. To the credit of King Bhumipol, His Majesty wants it scrapped in several speeches to his subjects and to Parliament. The Cybercrime Prevention Act is unique to us since we have a democratic and pluralist multiparty polity and yet you have a Congress that enabled its passage. Thailand was never considered as a democratic polity in the same way we are. The Thai law was passed a year after Mr Thaksin was sacked in a 2006 coup d etat after which followed a revision of the Thai constitution. This even if Yingluck is now PM. Thaksin can just approach the Thai border and not cross it. Yingluck herself is limited to pursue the Thaksin platform by the new political realities. That explains the difference and you and I have to take the political context of these laws. You cannot argue that we are in the same boat as with the other countries in ASEAN which are undergoing their democratic transitions at varying stages. And we have to exclude Singapore which is essentially a one party state. My point is that PH is much ahead in this transition. The fact that you can blog without fear or favour is evidence for that at least for now.
It is better to look at the political context of the Aquino administration and why it is allowing the passage of these acts without much scrutiny. And I do believe the subtext is extremely clear. There is an irresistible temptation to authoritarianism and this will get worse as the Aquino administration nears its end term. History repeating itself? Yes, I would agree with you that the form of government is immaterial, as you point it out but the political dynamics of the ruling elite is material. For Thailand and PH, the Yellow generals in Bangkok (who have by tradition leverage power transitions) and the Yellows we have here (who want to start a similar tradition) and I reiterate, the temptation to “reign forever” is becoming stronger.
30 September 2012 • 1:23 pm
My whole point was to show how our neighbors have gone about silencing dissent using insidious laws. I never said we were on the same boat in terms of form of government with Thailand, etc. — that isn’t even relevant. My goal is to rouse people to the realization that what’s happened in other countries with repressive laws could happen here, democratic country or not.