Editor,
On Sept. 12, the Philippine government signed a new “cybercrime” law into effect. On the surface, the law seemed like a good step toward finally making the Internet a safe place by punishing cases of identity theft, child pornography and hacking. The law would quickly lose that status, and effectively turn Philippine cyberspace into a police state, with the inclusion of a section on libel.
Libel, as defined by the Philippine penal code, is any statement or action that could be seen as character defamation, and is already illegal in every other form of media. The cybercrime law would have made even a joke on a private Facebook page illegal, and the publisher, as well as anyone who “liked” the status, could face hefty fines and jail time. The cybercrime law is tyrannical, striking a blow against net neutrality and making huge sections of the population criminals. It removed any semblance of free speech from the country, and with the aid of IP tracking to find the source of libel, the anonymity of the Internet.
The creation of libel laws can be a good thing; such laws can moderate hate speech and make citizens more mindful of their words. The Philippine government clearly had no such intentions for the law, though. Former first gentleman Jose Arroyo has a history of suing over the slightest of remarks, and the wording of existing libel law is such that any form of criticism in any form of media could be seen as libel. Taking this into account, the inclusion of libel into the cybercrime law was clearly done purely to silence dissenting voices within the country.
There is good news. On Oct. 9, due to pressure from various human rights groups, the Philippine Supreme Court suspended the law. But how fortunate is that? The law is no longer in effect, but the fact that, even for the briefest time, it was, has set a precedent for any other country that wishes to remove the freedom of speech that can be found on the Internet. The Internet is the last place many people can go to express their lack of faith in their government, and has proven essential to turning the tides against oppressive governments — for example, the Arab Spring was aided in large part by communication over social networking sites.
The Philippines’ Cybercrime Prevention Act succeeded where SOPA, PIPA and ACTA failed, if only for a short span of time. This should scare everyone who values free speech and everyone who wishes to be able to raise their voice in opposition to their government. The Internet is neutral and the most fertile ground for free speech; we cannot let it become a police state. As one anonymous Filipino blogger put it, we must continue to practice our right to free speech on the Internet, because by accepting laws like these, they have won and silenced the world.
Audrey Black
UNM student
