Monday, 8 October 2012

CyberCrime Law...More Info...

I saw this post:

For those who are saying that Sen. Sotto deliberately inserted the internet libel to avoid online criticisms.

HERE are the facts:

1. The senate journal would clearly show that Sen. Sotto’s proposal to include libel in the cybercrime law was made prior to his turno-en-contra speech on the RH bill.

2. During the period of interpellation, Sen. Sotto asked Sen. Angara if libel is included in the proposed Cybercrime bill. The senate journal dated December 12, 2011 would confirm that Sen. Angara’s response was in the affirmative. Meaning, even without the individual amendment of Sen. Sotto, internet libel was already included in the proposed bill.

(“Asked by Senator Sotto if the bill also addresses internet libel or internet defamation, Senator Angara stated that the bill includes it as a crime, an actionable offense, because one can be defamed through Twitter or social media”. source: Senate Journal Dec. 12, 2011)

3. The same senate journal would also prove that Sen. Sotto’s rationale for asking the inclusion of internet libel does not have anything to do with his personal experience on cyber bullying which happened only in August and September of 2012.

(“Referring to the case of actress Rhian Ramos, who claimed that someone maliciously distributed information about her through the You Tube, Senator Angara believed that it is an actionable offense under the bill and the PNP and NBI would monitor and investigate it”. Source: Senate Journal Dec. 12, 2011)

4. It can also be noted that not even a single senator then present stood up to question the inclusion of internet libel. Not even Sen. Escudero and Sen. Pia Cayetano who were then present objected thereto.

5. During the period of individual amendment, Sen. Sotto proposed to provide the wordings for the crime of internet libel in the bill which Sen. Angara accepted. Again, no objection was made by any Senators then present. Among those who were present were Sen. Pia Cayetano and Sen. Escudero.

6. The inclusion of libel, as manifested by the senate journal dated January 24, 2012 was made to address the numerous abuses in technology, particularly the malicious video and photo uploading and unnecessary and libelous write-ups and comments in social networking sites.

7. The inclusion of internet libel was not hastily made. It was not a “midnight” insertion. It went through the appropriate parliamentary procedure. It was discussed during the period of debates.

I don't know coz as per my googling this lawyer seems to be part of Tito Sotto's staff.  Plus I appreciate Chiz & Pia now that they have admitted to their mistake & working towards revising the libel provision.  It's also now that I learned that Pia is actively addressing the 'people's' concerns through her twitter account.  Thumbs up to her that we have someone we can actually reach when we have concerns about the country.  Plus several official media outlets report that Tito Sotto himself admitted he was responsible for inserting the libel provision on this law (I also remember reading somewhere that there were 2 senators who inserted this provision, not just Sotto, I'm so curious who the other one is). 

No comments:

Post a Comment