Make no mistake about it: the Philippines does need a cybercrime prevention law. But, the online world is not just some other new realm into which the laws of the physical world can simply be applied in a snap. It is not a direct reflection of how society interacts in the physical world. The internet has so very many nooks and crannies of possibilities for varying purposes. Somewhere on this planet, someone is already creating the next whatever that will change things again in the online world. Not 5 years from now. It may very well be ready in a month. And as soon as we understand it, it can quickly become a part of how we do things.
Take Facebook, for example. Just 5-6 years ago, all we knew to do with it was to throw virtual sheep at friends. Now, Facebook has become the infrastructure with which people are saving lives on the other side of the world, overthrowing governments, and exposing illegal activities. Just to name a few.
Yet, while there are a great number of good things that can be done, there is also a great number of cruel things that can take advantage of the same technology. And that is why, in these times we live in, a piece of legislation that can protect and guide online users is necessary. But, it has to be well-thought out and crafted with a deep understanding of the online world's landscape and how netizens move in it. Unfortunately and obviously, the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 or R.A. 10175 was not formulated in that manner.
Like many fellow online users, I'm very concerned particularly about the libel clause that was inserted into this law. Because, come on, what is libel, really? Parang beauty yan eh -- it's in the eye of the beholder. But, I'm not writing this blog post to discuss libel or to dissect the libel clause in R.A. 10175. Besides, Sen. Guingona has already done a great job of doing that (click here). I'm blogging about this because it worries me as a advocate.
The independent marine conservation group that I co-founded with 10 other people, called Save Philippine Seas, was birthed online from open, candid, engaged discussions. That same spirit has grown into a large social network. It is the active involvement of online citizens -- through their "likes", the reports, the shares, the posts/reposts, the comments -- that keeps the flame burning bright and hot. Apart from being quick to click "like" on cute graphics and stunning underwater photos, our online community is unabashed about commenting on and reporting violations, atrocities, irresponsibilities. Through them, we are able to gauge which messages are getting through and which ones still need to be clarified. Through them, we are able to fight and win some battles, and get recharged for more.
But now, the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 will make us second-guess everything we say. Even as we think it, we will edit ourselves and wonder about the consequences. We will hesitate to participate. All the honest talk will be hidden among trusted friends in emails and private chat windows. But even in those secret spaces, we might still remain suspicious and wary. Instead of openly sharing information and then engaging the energy and resources of a hundred other people in a snap, these same avenues that keep the online world alive will become darkened back alleys where only a few will walk through, and walk through very fast, lest they leave a mark that could be traced back to them years from now.
R.A. 10175 will not only kill the freedom of speech and expression, but it will also kill the mechanisms that are making citizens aware, informed, and involved.
Sure, we want people to be more responsible online. There are times when we want to tear our hair out in exasperation at those who really should just shut up. But, limiting the freedom to voice out opinions will not equate to encouraging a better sense of responsibility.
Yes, we need protection online. But, the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 as it is now cannot protect us. Amend it now.
Take Facebook, for example. Just 5-6 years ago, all we knew to do with it was to throw virtual sheep at friends. Now, Facebook has become the infrastructure with which people are saving lives on the other side of the world, overthrowing governments, and exposing illegal activities. Just to name a few.
Yet, while there are a great number of good things that can be done, there is also a great number of cruel things that can take advantage of the same technology. And that is why, in these times we live in, a piece of legislation that can protect and guide online users is necessary. But, it has to be well-thought out and crafted with a deep understanding of the online world's landscape and how netizens move in it. Unfortunately and obviously, the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 or R.A. 10175 was not formulated in that manner.
Like many fellow online users, I'm very concerned particularly about the libel clause that was inserted into this law. Because, come on, what is libel, really? Parang beauty yan eh -- it's in the eye of the beholder. But, I'm not writing this blog post to discuss libel or to dissect the libel clause in R.A. 10175. Besides, Sen. Guingona has already done a great job of doing that (click here). I'm blogging about this because it worries me as a advocate.
The independent marine conservation group that I co-founded with 10 other people, called Save Philippine Seas, was birthed online from open, candid, engaged discussions. That same spirit has grown into a large social network. It is the active involvement of online citizens -- through their "likes", the reports, the shares, the posts/reposts, the comments -- that keeps the flame burning bright and hot. Apart from being quick to click "like" on cute graphics and stunning underwater photos, our online community is unabashed about commenting on and reporting violations, atrocities, irresponsibilities. Through them, we are able to gauge which messages are getting through and which ones still need to be clarified. Through them, we are able to fight and win some battles, and get recharged for more.
But now, the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 will make us second-guess everything we say. Even as we think it, we will edit ourselves and wonder about the consequences. We will hesitate to participate. All the honest talk will be hidden among trusted friends in emails and private chat windows. But even in those secret spaces, we might still remain suspicious and wary. Instead of openly sharing information and then engaging the energy and resources of a hundred other people in a snap, these same avenues that keep the online world alive will become darkened back alleys where only a few will walk through, and walk through very fast, lest they leave a mark that could be traced back to them years from now.
R.A. 10175 will not only kill the freedom of speech and expression, but it will also kill the mechanisms that are making citizens aware, informed, and involved.
Sure, we want people to be more responsible online. There are times when we want to tear our hair out in exasperation at those who really should just shut up. But, limiting the freedom to voice out opinions will not equate to encouraging a better sense of responsibility.
Yes, we need protection online. But, the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 as it is now cannot protect us. Amend it now.
No comments:
Post a Comment