ARE YOU LIABLE FOR CYBERLIBEL IF YOU LIKED, SHARED OR POSTED A COMMENT ON A DEFAMATORY ONLINE POST?

Did you post a DEFAMATORY POST?

like, share or comment on a DEFAMATORY POST?

In this video, Your_Lawyer talks about LIBEL and ONLINE LIBEL or CYBERLIBEL.

CYBERLIBEL is similar to CYBERBULLYING, CYBERBASHING and CYBERSHAMING.

This video touches on the following:

Cyber-bullying
Cyber-bashing
Cyber-shaming
Online libel
Online bullying
Online shaming
Debt shaming
Libel
Defamatory
Defamation
Freedom of speech
Freedom of Expression
Constitutional right
Malice in law
Malice is presumed
Discreditable act
Share
Post
Comment
Social media
Facebook
Twitter
Reputation
Fear
Knee-jerk sentiment

Disini v. Secretary of Justice (G.R. Nos. 203335, et al.) is a landmark ruling of the Supreme Court of the Philippines handed down on February 18, 2014. When the Philippines Congress passed the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, the bill was immediately controversial, especially its strict penalties for the new crime of "cyberlibel", an upgraded form of the already existing criminal libel charge found in the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines.

Here are some of the excerpts from the decision of the Supreme Court:

“The elements of libel are: (a) the allegation of a discreditable act or condition concerning another; (b) publication of the charge; (c) identity of the person defamed; and (d) existence of malice.”

“There is "actual malice" or malice in fact when the offender makes the defamatory statement with the knowledge that it is false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. The reckless disregard standard used here requires a high degree of awareness of probable falsity. There must be sufficient evidence to permit the conclusion that the accused in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of the statement he published. Gross or even extreme negligence is not sufficient to establish actual malice.”

“But, where the offended party is a private individual, the prosecution need not prove the presence of malice. The law explicitly presumes its existence (malice in law) from the defamatory character of the assailed statement.45 For his defense, the accused must show that he has a justifiable reason for the defamatory statement even if it was in fact true.46”

“The internet is characterized as encouraging a freewheeling, anything-goes writing style.50 In a sense, they are a world apart in terms of quickness of the reader’s reaction to defamatory statements posted in cyberspace, facilitated by one-click reply options offered by the networking site as well as by the speed with which such reactions are disseminated down the line to other internet users.”

“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?”

“The old parameters for enforcing the traditional form of libel would be a square peg in a round hole when applied to cyberspace libel. Unless the legislature crafts a cyber libel law that takes into account its unique circumstances and culture, such law will tend to create a chilling effect on the millions that use this new medium of communication in violation of their constitutionally-guaranteed right to freedom of expression.”

“Libel in the cyberspace can of course stain a person’s image with just one click of the mouse. Scurrilous statements can spread and travel fast across the globe like bad news. Moreover, cyberlibel often goes hand in hand with cyberbullying that oppresses the victim, his relatives, and friends, evoking from mild to disastrous reactions. Still, a governmental purpose, which seeks to regulate the use of this cyberspace communication technology to protect a person’s reputation and peace of mind, cannot adopt means that will unnecessarily and broadly sweep, invading the area of protected freedoms.”

“If such means are adopted, self-inhibition borne of fear of what sinister predicaments await internet users will suppress otherwise robust discussion of public issues. Democracy will be threatened and with it, all liberties. Penal laws should provide reasonably clear guidelines for law enforcement officials and triers of facts to prevent arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.63 The terms "aiding or abetting" constitute broad sweep that generates chilling effect on those who express themselves through cyberspace posts, comments, and other messages.64 Hence, Section 5 of the cybercrime law that punishes "aiding or abetting" libel on the cyberspace is a nullity.”

CyberLibelCyber libelLibel