Supreme Court discourse on Cybercrime Law
I THINK the online community in the Philippines should take some time to listen in on the presentation of the oral arguments in the Supreme Court against the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. It is not easy listening. Not all of it is riveting or compelling. But the opportunity to listen in on an exchange about freedom of expression at this level should not be wasted. Not if you, like we do, believe in freedom of expression.
Indeed, the discussion in itself is rare. Except for the small community of press freedom and human rights advocates, who, sometimes but not too often, connect with those involved with artistic and academic freedom, freedom of speech in this very talkative society has been viewed more as a sectoral theme. It is an issue that concerns people who work in special fields, art, news and communication, as though freedom of speech, a fundamental aspect of our being human, is seen as a special capability and an extraordinary entitlement. Few Filipinos think about their freedom of speech. Perhaps, because it is something they take for granted.
There is all the more reason then to be in touch with what’s being said in the High Court.
The implementation of the law was stopped by petitioners who are asking the Court to rule on its constitutionality.
Even with so many lawyers, the protection of free speech and expression has not produced a body of judgment that reflects the growth, expansion of legal thought on this doctrine. Few lawyers have immersed themselves in these issues. A former law school dean, now publisher of the Philippine Daily Inquirer, reviewed how law schools teach the law of freedom of expression and acknowledged how the training does foster the value of its defense.
The cases that force the courts to determine whether a crime has been committed through speech or through writing are not reported on to the extent that they become topical. Even journalists do not necessarily familiarize themselves with the nuances of landmark decisions.
Now with the gift of cyberspace, the Supreme Court has made it possible to listen in to no less than the highest court of the land argue and respond to questions, talking back and forth on whether the Cybercrime law violates the constitutional grant of freedom of expression. This time, the arguments are not made in the interest of protecting those working in the press or in broadcast media, or those creating art or writing books. The discourse has focused more on the use of cyberspace by ordinary people, the “everyman” and “everywoman” who make the Internet and the social media an integral part of how they live.
It is after all as ordinary people that we have taken to the innovations of communication, as every turn and phase of the technological revolution have changed how we communicate. Filipinos made the country the first “text” capital of the world, and we were ahead of everyone else in transforming the text or “SMS” into a political tool. The cellphone has been the most empowering possession, linking individuals separated by the distances within the country and in the rest of the world. Within the span of a short decade, the Internet opened up a venue so vast that we have become “expressive” in unprecedented and unimaginable ways. It has created instant forums in cyberspace, facilitating discourse among special groups and easing self-expression for anyone inclined, at any given moment, connecting and commenting on anything and everything. It has become so easy to “click,” share a thought, or to pass on the thought of someone else to countless others—yes, often without a thought about the marvel of the action and its speed.
When journalists and other professionals write their blog or open up their personal webpage, they generally do so as ordinary people, outside the frame of their working lives and the checks and controls that govern their work conduct.
No one has to have stature to share their status or their thoughts on Facebook. And Twitter makes it possible for ordinary people to connect with celebrities. I do not think the experts have begun to study the effects of the speed and brevity required by social media communication on the nature of communication and the consequent change that these may evolve in the way people think, or perhaps, not think. Even less thought has been given to the effect on politics and public life. I am as concerned about the negative impact of communication technology on various aspects of life as I am enthusiastic about the obvious potential for empowerment. But this is another issue.
The 15 petitions in the Supreme Court have asked for different responses: clarification, prohibition and in rejection of the law. These are asking the Supreme Court to examine the law, “declare it unconstitutional in its entirety or to repeal provisions that threaten to undermine free expression” in any of the existing media, including those in cyberspace.
Ordinary people, but especially those who are immersed in the Internet, should oblige themselves to listen in or to be informed about the highlights of the exchange. Such talk should provoke more talk, perhaps contentious talk, because it is this clash of ideas and values that will make us all think more seriously about how we stand on this most profound aspect of our social and public life. I think that this might lead us all to a deeper appreciation of this freedom, an awesome grant that the Constitution gives all citizens equally.
Bad laws are at the heart of many of our problems. Happily, at least, this one has occasioned this discussion and, thanks to the Internet, we can even listen in on it.
Not all of it is edifying, but there are enough moments that suggest a significant turning point that might give the freedom of expression truly a centerpiece of our way of life.
You may also want to listen to the oral arguments in Snyder v. Phelps, argued before the US Supreme Court in 2011 involving a civil suit against Westboro Baptist Church for hate speech, and whether it falls under the protections for free speech: httpss://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio_detail.aspx?argument=09-751