Supreme Court Idol: The cyberlibel edition.
By Oscar Franklin Tan, RAPPLER.COM
January 21, 2013

During the January 15 oral arguments at the Supreme Court, how many realized that Atty Harry Roque practically stopped discussing the Cybercrime Law and attacked the real world libel law instead? How many noticed that when Justice Marvic Leonen cited the need to protect Chris Lao, he contradicted himself by invoking a doctrine that protects speech? How many observed that Leonen made up for it after by blocking the last piece of Roque’s pet international law argument?

Welcome to Supreme Court Idol: the cyberlibel edition, a recap of the top legal moments (and misses) in last week’s oral arguments regarding the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. (This first installment covers the arguments regarding the actual cyberlibel provision.)

Internet libel has been punishable since the Internet’s creation and was not created by the Cybercrime Law. In fact, existing Internet libel charges are under the Revised Penal Code, enacted in 1930. The Cybercrime Law’s legal issues are far more technical than the Reproductive Health Law’s, which many distill into an individual’s right to choose.

Read full article @www.rappler.com

Human Rights Online Philippines does not hold copyright over these materials. Author/s and original source/s of information are retained including the URL contained within the tagline and byline of the articles, news information, photos etc.