Press and online freedom (Updated)

In observing World Press Freedom Day 2013, we must include in our discussion the need to protect Internet freedom and its enrichment of human communication.

I may not be its most savvy user but I hail this technological revolution for breaking down the hierarchical culture of the newsroom as the traditional news practice seems to have failed to keep up with the needs of the times. The Internet has exposed the limits of the “news” favored by the establishment press and has creating new space for the issues and concerns that are left out of the pages of newspapers and excluded by the time constraints from television news programs.

The Internet has allowed individuals who work outside the hallowed newsrooms of media organizations to carve their own realm in cyber-space, to observe and report on events, to document and to analyze, to share learning, to initiate and venture commentary on profoundly important issues, some touching on the marginalized and the poor and the many concerns in our troubled society which do not make the grade set by conventional standards of what makes news. It is the task of citizen journalists to insure that they continue to expand journalism in this brave new world of communication.

For this reason, the protection of Internet freedom and the concern for its growth and expansion must be a leading concern for all democracy activists and press freedom advocates. The experience of the speed and immediacy of Internet communication may seem a universe apart from what we have gotten used to in traditional mainstream media. As a platform for exchange, the medium may be so kinetic as to erase similarities. But the Internet is a media platform just the same.

Because it exhibits so much immediacy, it has become even more important to appreciate its power, the application of which has not ceased to innovate and invent new applications from its inception.

That it is a medium for news and for journalism is obvious. What may not be so obvious is the need to incorporate Internet freedom in the endeavor to preserve freedom of expression even as we work to promote its meaningful use.

On July 5, 2012, the Human Rights Council affirmed that “the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online, in particular freedom of expression.” Nothing has been more free and open than the platforms for expression in cyberspace. Nothing has been more inviting for individual expression. Nothing has been more challenging than its application for citizen journalism.

Because of its innate power and dynamic, stakeholders are called upon to initiate the discussion of its governance and to create a model that recognizes the wisdom of a system of voluntary restraints, one that grows an ethical culture that will be understood and observed by its users.

That kind of response is undermined, perhaps even prevented, by governments more inclined toward legal enforcement and statutory limits. The quick passage of  the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (RA 10175) indicated how strongly these tendencies work in the culture of our government when confronted with issues of political and civil freedoms. RA 10175 incorporated the Philippine libel law, an 82-year old barnacle holding on to our Revised Penal Code, which criminalizes defamation and libel.

For quite awhile, the Philippines had stood apart for the absence of laws that interfere with Internet freedom, distinguishing the country from most of its Asian neighbors. The passage of this law happened so quickly as to have gone under the radar of those engaged in tracking legislation that threaten freedom of expression, including CMFR.  But it was quite alarming how boldly it has gone against the liberal provisions of the Philippine Constitution.

Soon after its passage in Congress, 15 petitioners, including CMFR, asked the Supreme Court to nullify the law or repeal some of its egregious provisions.

Early this week, at a panel of the Civil Society Forum of the Community of Democracies in Ulan Bator, Mongolia, I shared this cautionary tale with freedom-oriented communities from around the world. Many of those attending were from countries whose democracies are quite younger than ours. But perhaps they needed the reminder never to take anything for granted.

The threats to our freedom and our human rights often come from our democratically elected representatives in government. They make the worst enemies of democracy as they pervert the system which gives them authority and power. We need to respond with a vibrant activism must flourish to prevent and counter these threats from within.