Amended petition vs Cybercrime law underscores unconstitutionality of libel

Some petitions question only parts of the law. There is the questioning of the penalty, it being harsher than libel by print media. There is even the question on double jeopardy.

I believe it is much better for all concerned, however, to attack the mother law, thus, taking down the child law with it. I do not know, however, if anybody has presented my legal questions in their petition. If not, then it will not be considered by the Supreme Court, until another case is presented.

In fact, were I defending your Davao journalist co-petitioner, I believe I could have presented a new argument to the Supreme Court, so that they would have no recourse relying on old jurisprudence that upheld the validity of presumed malice, as written in the libel law.

That is the problem of presenting a legal question that has already been tackled; you are susceptible to a denial based on old jurisprudence (See abogadomodotcom thanks to baycas2). But if you present a novel issue of law, then the Court will be forced to craft a new doctrine.

Maliwanag ang criminal law. Mahirap ilusot yung presumption of an element of the offense as constitutional.

Read the latest intel from Anonymous about the “Rape Crew”, as these fecoids call themselves.

http://localleaks.blogs.ru/

Note the .ru, which means the site is hosted in Russia. So if the cyber crime law is not struck down, I see many NoyPis setting up blogs hosted in Russia, Macedonia, or even the Fiji Islands. There will be many workarounds if the Supreme Court does not step up to the plate.

Nanganak lang ang kaso. The case against the perps is still rape.

The case was hardly noticed, until the blogger, Alexandria Goddard blogged incessantly about it. One of the friends of the perps, ex boyfriend of the victim, who, said “Nobody breaks up with Cody Saltsman”, may have had a revenge angle to it. He sued Goddard for defamation, and he wanted a court order to force her to reveal anonymous commenters’ identities on her blog. That is how freedom of speech got thrown in as an issue in the defamation case.

Here is the New York Times article which appeared only after Goddard got the US media’s attention. Note the date, December 16, 2012.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/sports/high-school-football-rape-case-unfolds-online-and-divides-steubenville-ohio.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Okay. Here is a case which may be the type you will face, if the cyber libel law is not voided.

A City Councilman (Cahill) in Delaware sues an anonymous commenter on a political blog for defamation. The judge is requested to force Comcast (internet provider) to reveal the identity of John Doe. Two comments of John Doe are as follows:

Cahill is a prime example of failed leadership.

Gahill [sic] is as paranoid as everyone in the town thinks he is. The mayor needs support from his citizens and protections from unfounded attacks…

The case goes up to the Delaware Supreme Court. My new idol, Chief Justice Steele, writing for the court en banc, had the following choice statements, which beautifully sums up all the issues relative to your petition before our Supreme Court. There is the issue of democratization of public debate brought about by the internet, the empowerment of commenters with no money to access traditional media, and the reason for respecting anonymity over the internet. Hats off Your Honor:

The advent of the internet dramatically changed the nature of public discourse by allowing more and diverse people to engage in public debate. Unlike thirty years ago, when “many citizens [were] barred from meaningful participation in public discourse by financial or status inequalities and a relatively small number of powerful speakers [could] dominate the marketplace of ideas” the internet now allows anyone with a phone line to “become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox.” Through the internet, speakers can bypass mainstream media to speak directly to “an audience larger and more diverse than any the Framers could have imagined.” Moreover, speakers on internet chat rooms and blogs can speak directly to other people with similar interests. A person in Alaska can have a conversation with a person in Japan about beekeeping in Bangladesh, just as easily as several Smyrna residents can have a conversation about Smyrna politics.

Internet speech is often anonymous. “Many participants in cyberspace discussions employ pseudonymous identities, and, even when a speaker chooses to reveal her real name, she may still be anonymous for all practical purposes.” For better or worse, then, “the audience must evaluate [a] speaker’s ideas based on her words alone.” “This unique feature of [the internet] promises to make public debate in cyberspace less hierarchical and discriminatory” than in the real world because it disguises status indicators such as race, class, and age.

It is clear that speech over the internet is entitled to First Amendment protection. This protection extends to anonymous internet speech. Anonymous internet speech in blogs or chat rooms in some instances can become the modern equivalent of political pamphleteering. As the United States Supreme Court recently noted, “anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and dissent.”/

Note the highlighted phrase. The internet forces the reader to evaluate only your words (or ideas). It does not come with the baggage (positive) of fame, or (negative) obscurity (some walang tinapos, who will be relegated to the sidelines by the posturing elite.)

Read the full text here:

http://courts.delaware.gov/opinions/download.aspx?ID=67130

More reason to protect anonymity, as stated by Chief Justice Steele.

A defamation plaintiff, particularly a public figure, obtains a very important form of relief by unmasking the identity of his anonymous critics. The revelation of identity of an anonymous speaker “may subject [that speaker] to ostracism for expressing unpopular ideas, invite retaliation from those who oppose her ideas or from those whom she criticizes, or simply give unwanted exposure to her mental processes.” Plaintiffs can often initially plead sufficient facts to meet the good faith test applied by the Superior Court, even if the defamation claim is not very strong, or worse, if they do not intend to pursue the defamation action to a final decision. After obtaining the identity of an anonymous critic through the compulsory discovery process, a defamation plaintiff who either loses on the merits or fails to pursue a lawsuit is still free to engage in extra-judicial self-help remedies;

more bluntly, the plaintiff can simply seek revenge or retribution.

Bakit panay ang demanda ng mga tulad ni Mike the Pig at yung kaklase niyang tumakbong neked-neked?

To silence their critics, not really to seek redress. Hindi ako ang nagsabi niyan, si Chief Justice Steele:

Indeed, there is reason to believe that many defamation plaintiffs bring suit merely to unmask the identities of anonymous critics. As one commentator has
noted, “[t]he sudden surge in John Doe suits stems from the fact that many defamation actions are not really about money.” “The goals of this new breed of libel action are largely symbolic, the primary goal being to silence John Doe and others like him.” This “sue first, ask questions later” approach, coupled with a standard only minimally protective of the anonymity of defendants, will discourage
debate on important issues of public concern as more and more anonymous posters censor their online statements in response to the likelihood of being unmasked.