THE SOCIAL MEDIA AND THE
ACADEMIC COMMUNITY:
A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE
DEFINITION OF SOCIAL MEDIA:
The “social” part: refers to interacting with other people by sharing
information with them and receiving information from them.
The “media” part: refers to an instrument of communication, like the
internet. TV, radio, TV and newspapers are traditional forms of media.
Social Media--- web-based communication tools that enable people to
interact with each other by both sharing and consuming information.
EXAMPLES OF SOCIAL MEDIA:
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram
Snapshots
CYBERSPACE:
Access virtual libraries and encyclopedias
Post billboard-like notices or messages, including pictures
and videos
Advertise and promote goods and make purchases and
payments
Inquire and do business with institutional entities
Communicate in writing or by voice with any person through
email address or telephone
WELCOME TO CYBERSPACE!!!
CYBERSPACE:
But the system has no means to filter out a number of persons of ill
will who would want to use cyberspace technology for mischiefs and
crimes:
ruin the reputation of another
bully another by posting defamatory statements
theft by hacking into back accounts or credit card
defrauding through false representations
trafficking in sex
exposing to pornography guileless children
GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE:
CYBERCRIME PREVENTION ACT OF 2012
(R.A. 10175; enacted on Sept. 12, 2012)
The cybercrime law aims to regular access
to and use of the cyberspace and imposes
penalties for violations.
PUNISHABLE ACTS:
A) Offenses Against Confidentiality, Integrity and Availability of
Computer Data and Systems:
1. Illegal Access- he or she accesses the whole or any part of a computer
system without right.
2. Illegal Interception- made by technical means without right of any non-
public transmission of computer data to
3. Data Interference - by inputting, transmitting, damaging, deleting,
deteriorating, altering or suppressing computer data or program,
electronic document, or electronic data message, without right
4. System Interference - is anything which modifies, or disrupts a signal as
it travels along a channel between a source and a receiver. The term
typically refers to the addition of unwanted signals to a useful signal.
5. Misuse of Devices -
6. Cyber-squatting t, is registering, trafficking in, or using an Internet
domain name with bad faith intent to profit from the goodwill of a
trademark belonging to someone else.
PUNISHABLE ACTS:
B) Computer-related Offenses:
1. Computer-related Forgery- the action of forging or
producing a copy of a document, signature, banknote, or
work of art
2. Computer-related Fraud- is the act of using a computer
to take or alter electronic data, or to gain unlawful use of
a computer or system
3. Computer-related Identity Theft - is a crime whereby
criminals impersonate individuals, usually for financial
gain.
PUNISHABLE ACTS:
PUNISHABLE ACTS:
C) Content-related Offenses:
1. Cyber Sex - sexual arousal using computer technology,
especially by wearing virtual reality equipment or by
exchanging messages with another person via the Internet.
2. Child Pornography (R.A. 9775, Anti-child Pornography Act of
2009)
3. Unsolicited Commercial Communications - is transmitted for
the purpose of informing about, or soliciting or promoting any
commercial transaction in relation to goods, investments or
services which a subscriber does not want to receive.
4. Libel - a published false statement that is damaging to a
person's reputation; a written defamation
PUNISHABLE ACTS:
Other Offenses:
a) Aiding or Abetting in the Commission of Cybercrime
b) Attempt in the Commission of Cybercrime
ONLINE LIBEL:
The world’s first-known libel case on Facebook
was filed in Europe in July 2008, by British
businessman Matthew Firsht against his former
school friend, Grant Raphael who alleged the
former as a gay. Firsht won and awarded
damages for the libel case and breach of
privacy.
ONLINE LIBEL:
In the Philippines, the first libel case on Facebook
was filed by celebrity cosmetic surgeon–Dr. Vicky
Belo against writer-lawyer-activist Atty. Argee
Guevarra who imputed on Belo as the “Reyna ng
Kaplastikan, Reyna ng Kapalpakan” referring to
the alleged malpractice of the Belo clinics. (Note: The
case was dismissed after the judge trying the case ruled
that there was no libel on the internet yet. However, several
similar cases have been pending in several courts
nationwide.)
Also in the news were the controversial shout-
outs of Film Director and Actress Gina Alajar
on her Facebook making some negative
comments against young starlet–Krista Ranillo
over the alleged affair of the young star with
boxing icon Manny Pacquiao. Read in one of
the shout-outs of Alajar’s account: “If I am
Jinkee Pacquiao, I will not give up Manny.
“Krista Ranillo is not at all worth it!”
REASON WHY DEFAMATION IS PUNISHED
The enjoyment of a private reputation is as much a
constitutional right as the possession of life, liberty or property.
It is one of those rights necessary to human society that
underlie the whole scheme of civilization. The law recognizes
the value of such reputation and imposes upon him who
attacks it, by slanderous words or libelous publication, the
liability to make full compensation for the damages done.
(Worcester vs. Ocampo, 22 Phil. 42)
ART. 355. LIBEL MEANS BY WRITINGS OR
SIMILAR MEANS. —
A libel committed by means of writing, printing,
lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting,
theatrical exhibition, cinematographic exhibition, or any
similar means, shall be punished by prison correctional
in its minimum and medium periods (6 months and 1 day
to 4 years and 2months) or a fine ranging from 200 to
6,000 pesos, or both, in addition to the civil action which
may be brought by the offended party.
Art. 353. Definition of libel. — A libel is public and
malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or
defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission,
condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause
the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or
juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one
who is dead.
WHO ARE CRIMINALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR
LIBEL?
1. The person who publishes, exhibits or causes
the publication or exhibition of any defamation in
writing or similar means.
2. The author or editor of a book or pamphlet.
3. The editor or business manager of a daily
newspaper magazine or serial publication (Art.
360, RPC).
WOMAN FROM CEBU: FIRST TO BE CHARGED WITH ONLINE LIBEL
UNDER CYBERCRIME LAW
POSTED ON SEPTEMBER 20, 2014 BY FRANCESCA N
CEBU, Philippines – A woman from Cebu who
allegedly maligned a single mother in a social
networking site was the first person to be
charged before the Cebu City Regional Trial
Court (RTC) for violating Republic Act (RA) No.
10175 otherwise known as the Cybercrime
Prevention Act of 2012.
SUNSTAR:
Atara (not her real name) was indicted by the Cebu City Prosecutor’s
Office after it found probable cause that she committed libel in relation
to RA 10175.
Bail was set at Php 20,000 for Atara who posted libelous messages
against a certain Vangie in the latter’s Facebook account. The
accused also called Vangie names like “cheap.”
When Atara threatened Vangie that she will post the libelous
statements on Facebook, Vangie deactivated her account. But Atara
continued to malign Vangie.
When Vangie reactivated her Facebook account, she then was able to
read the accused’s accusations against her.
LIBELOUS WORDS
According to Vangie, Atara posted the following statements
against her: “This the counterfeiter, forger and a thief. A lot of
cases will be coming out soon from Cebu. Beware of this
woman!”
Vangie then took pictures of the messages and included them
in her complaint.
“(She) clearly does not have any purpose in doing the acts I am
complaining of against her except to malign my name, my
person, and my business standing,” said Vangie.
The High Court in the case of Disini Jr. et al. vs. The
Secretary of Justice upheld the Internet libel provision
but limited it to the author of the libelous statement and
clarified that only authors of libelous materials are
covered by the Cybercrime Law and not those who
merely received or reacted to it.
The Supreme Court said that the new law “merely
incorporates” what had been stated in the Revised
Penal Code.
The Supreme Court also upheld the constitutionality of an
increased penalty for online libel, specifically, one degree
higher than for printed or 'paper' libel.
1. A person convicted of online libel shall be imposed a penalty
of imprisonment ranging from SIX YEARS ONE DAY TO 10
YEARS (N.B. Printed libel has a penalty of 6 months and 1day
to 4 years and 2 months or a fine ranging from 200 to 6,000
pesos, or both
2.He CANNOT apply for probation.
3. The prescriptive period for the offense increased to 10
years.
Article 90 of RPC- The crime of libel or other similar offenses
prescribe in one year.
DISINI JR. ET AL. VS. THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE
1. One day, Maria posts on her internet account the statement
that a Juan, a married public official has an illicit affair with a
movie star.
2. Linda, one of Maria’s friends who sees this post, comments
online, "Yes, this is so true! They are so immoral." Maria’s
original post is then multiplied by her friends and the latter’s
friends, and down the line to friends of friends almost ad
infinitum.
3. Nena, who is a stranger to both Maria and Linda, comes
across this blog, finds it interesting and so shares the link to
this apparently defamatory blog on her Twitter account.
Nena’s "Followers" then "Retweet" the link to that blog site.
DISINI JR. ET AL. VS. THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE
4. Pamela, a Twitter user, stumbles upon a random
person’s "Retweet" of Nena’s original tweet and
posts this on her Facebook account. Immediately,
Pamela’s Facebook Friends start Liking and making
Comments on the assailed posting. A lot of them
even press the Share button, resulting in the further
spread of the original posting into tens, hundreds,
thousands, and greater postings.
DISINI JR. ET AL. VS. THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE
The question is: Are online postings such
as "Liking" an openly defamatory
statement, "Commenting" on it, or
"Sharing" it with others, to be regarded
as "aiding or abetting?"
DISINI JR. ET AL. VS. THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE
In libel in the physical world, if Nestor places on the
office bulletin board a small poster that says, "Armand
is a thief!," he could certainly be charged with libel.
If Roger, seeing the poster, writes on it, "I like this!,"
that could not be libel since he did not author the
poster.
If Arthur, passing by and noticing the poster, writes on
it, "Correct!," would that be libel? No, for he merely
expresses agreement with the statement on the
poster. He still is not its author. Besides, it is not clear
if aiding or abetting libel in the physical world is a
crime.
DISINI JR. ET AL. VS. THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE
But suppose Nestor posts the blog, "Armand
is a thief!" on a social networking site. Would
a reader and his Friends or Followers,
availing themselves of any of the "Like,"
"Comment," and "Share" reactions, be guilty
of aiding or abetting libel?
SECTION 5 . OTHER OFFENSES
(a) Aiding or abetting in the commission of cybercrime---
Any person who willfully abets or aids in the commission of
any of the offenses enumerated in this Act shall be held
liable.
The Supreme Court has declared this provision as null and
void as it “encroaches on freedom of speech” for it
“generates a chilling effect on those who express
themselves through cyberspace posts, comments and other
messages.”
DISINI JR. ET AL. VS. THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE
Except for the original author of the assailed
statement, the rest (those who pressed Like,
Comment and Share) are essentially knee-jerk
sentiments of readers who may think little or
haphazardly of their response to the original posting.
Will they be liable for aiding or abetting? And,
considering the inherent impossibility of joining
hundreds or thousands of responding "Friends" or
"Followers" in the criminal charge to be filed in court,
who will make a choice as to who should go to jail for
the outbreak of the challenged posting?
DISINI JR. ET AL. VS. THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE
However, if the "Comment" does not merely react to the
original posting but creates an “altogether new
defamatory story” against Armand like "He beats his
wife and children," then that should be considered an
“original posting” published on the internet. Both the
penal code and the cybercrime law clearly punish
authors of defamatory publications.
WHO ARE LIABLE FOR ONLINE LIBLE?
The Supreme Court held that only the author
of the offending online article is liable.
Internet service providers and content
providers like Globe, Smart, Sun Cellular,
Google, Facebook, Twitter and Internet Café
are not liable.
THANK YOU!
ACTIVITY:
Case Studies
Case1: Protecting the Artist’s Copyright
Case2: Bridging Digital Divide
Case3: Drafting Netiquette
Case4: Regulating Internet Cafes Near Schools
Oral Presentation
Criteria 4 3 2 1
Organization
Subject
Knowledge
Graphics
Mechanics
Eye Contact
Elocution
