This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
The 1950s: Terminals connect to a mainframe, where all data in a given network is housed. The 1960s: The Internet , “an interconnection of computer networks,” a US defense experiment to test the survivability of the American military’s communication systems in the event of a nuclear strike. (Advanced Research Project Agency Network, ARPANET)
The 1970’s: Development of Transmission Control Protocol and Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) allowed for different networks to communicate with each other.
RENO v. ACLU: NO A) Requires a series of affirmative steps more deliberate and directed than turning a dial; B) Not as invasive as broadcast. Users seldom encounter content by accident
Entitled to highest protection
1. SECTIONS 4(C)4 AND 4(C)1 ARE VOID ON ITS FACE FOR BEING SO BROAD AS TO ENCOMPASS EVEN CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED SPEECH 2. BOTH SECTIONS ARE VOID FOR BEING VAGUE 3.VOID FOR BEING CONTRARY TO PACTA SUNDT SERVANDA, A GENERALLY ACCEPTED PRINCLE OF INTERNATIOANL LAW
statutes regulate or proscribe speech and x x x the transcendent value to all society of constitutionally protected expression x x x justify allowing attacks on overly broad statutes (Broadrick v. Oklahoma)
“In considering whether a statute suffers from overbreadth, a court's first task is to determine whether the enactment
reaches a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct.
substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct may be held facially invalid.”
x x x those that make unlawful a
unlawful or prohibited acts of libel as defined in Article355 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, committed through a computer system or any other similar means x x x
1. Since internet is a new technology, 4 c (4) could penalize protected speech;
2. Art. 355 of RPC penalizes protected speech: the truth as a defense and and false statements without knowledge that it is false or without utter disregard of its falsity
Twitter: Are retweets liable for libel?
Facebook: Are likes and reposting of “libelous” materials liable for libel?
Blogs and on-line publications with “comments” space: Are the blog owners liable for libelous statements in these statements?
Is reposting a link actionable?
“Art. 360. Persons responsible. — Any person
who shall publish, exhibit, or cause the publication or exhibition of any defamation in writing or by similar means, shall be responsible for the same. x x x”
Are ISP’s liable? Are the owners of social networking liable? Are Google and Yahoo liable? Are Telcos liable? Are cybercafe owners liable?
civil sanctions could not be imposed based upon defamatory statements made concerning a public official unless the statements were false and made with "actual malice.” The Court defined "actual malice" as making a statement "with knowledge that [the statement] was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." _Id._
on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and . . . may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.”
x x x "erroneous statement is inevitable in free debate x x x it must be protected if the freedoms of expression are to have the 'breathing space' that they 'need . . . to survive' . . . ,”
Publishing v. Butts: Test of actual malice or utter disregard applied to public figures
1.Utah: IMA vs. Utah 2.Alaska: Gottschalk v. Alaska 3.Arkansas: Weston v. Arkansas 4.California: Eberle v. Municipal Court of LA 5.Montana: Montana v. Richard 6.Kentucky: Ashton v. Kentucky 7.Pennsylvania : Pennsylvania v. Armao 8.South Carolina: Fitts v. Calb
The plain language of RPC statute does not comport with the requirements laid down Sullivan :The statute does not
punish only "actual malice" when the statement concerns public officials.
Vazquez vs. CA; Borajal v. CA and in Guinguin v. CA: “even if the defamatory statement is false, no liability can attach if it relates to official conduct, unless the public official concerned proves that the statement was made with actual malice.”
The statute punishes all statements made "maliciously," The common law definition of "malice" is quite different from the "actual malice" contemplated by the United States Supreme. Malice in law includes “ hatred, illwill and contempt
IMA v. Utah: We have noted that "malice" and"actual malice" are not interchangeable.
Second, the statute provides no immunity for truthful statements: “Every defamatory
imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it be true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown x x x
RPC infringes upon a substantial amount of constitutionally protected speech:
(1) false statements regarding public figures made without knowledge or recklessness outside of fair and true report of any act performed by public officials in the exercise of their functions, and (2) true statements regarding public figures not covered by qualified privilege.
(c) Content-related Offenses:(1) Cybersex. — The willful engagement, maintenance, control, or operation, directly or indirectly, of any lascivious exhibition of sexual organs or sexual activity, with the aid of a computer system, for favor or consideration.
Chavez v. Gonzales: Only when the challenged act has overcome the clear and present danger rule will it pass constitutional muster, with the government having the burden of overcoming the presumed unconstitutionality. The latter will pass constitutional muster only if justified by a compelling reason, and the restrictions imposed are neither overbroad nor vague. 
the following slides Lascivious?
or consideration”: what about schools, museums, research tools (lexis/Nexis, JSTOR, SSRN)
What is defamatory? Who is liable for libel?
What are justifiable motives? What are good intentions? What is lascivious?
Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution provides: “the Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land”.
Pacta sundt servanda as a generally accepted principle that forms part of the laws of the land (Secretary v. Lantion,Tanada v. Angara, Kuroda v. Jalandoni, IS Alliance of Educators v. Quisumbing)
Republic vs.Sandiganbayan: “Nevertheless, even during the interregnum (Freedom Constitution) the Filipino people continued to enjoy, under the Covenant (ICCPR) and the Declaration (UDHR), almost the same rights found in the Bill of Rights of the 1973 Constitution.” (Italics supplied)
“The Human Rights Committee is the body of independent experts that monitors implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by its State parties.
First Optional Protocol to the Covenant gives the Committee competence to examine individual complaints with regard to alleged violations of the Covenant by States parties to the Protocol.
Court of Justice (Guinea v. DRC): x x x ascribe great weight to the interpretation adopted by ( the Committee) (because) it was established speciﬁcally to supervise the application of that treaty.
“Sanction of imprisonment imposed on the author was incompatible with Art. 19, Paragraph 3 of this Covenant”
“Pursuant to Article 2, paragraph 3(a) of the Covenant, the Committee considers the state party to be under obligation to provide the author with an effective remedy, including adequate compensation for time spent in prison. The state party is also under an obligation to take steps to prevent similar violations from occurring in the future, including by reviewing the relevant libel legislation”
must hence declare that both Art 355 of the RPC, Art 4(c)4 and Art 4(c)1 of the CyberCrime Prevention Act as void on its face; and additionally art. 4(C)4 for violating pacta sundt servanda
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.