Wednesday, 3 October 2012
How the Cybercrime Law affected Senators in 2013 election
These photos are retweeted and reposted all over the internet. Most of the Filipino voters vowed not to vote for all the senators who passed and created the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. Then all of the sudden the news says that senators expressed their "regrets".
It is funny that after tons of protests, apparently the one the affects our legislators is the threat of not being elected in the 2013 election. What does this say?
It simply means that they are all mostly concern on their image and position. They claim they've studied and reviewed the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, then why express their objections AFTER the act had already been passed? Aren't they the ones who created it?
Obviously, they know what's in it. They are fully aware of what the law is all about and what would be the consequences of passing the said law.
To all senators who "regrets" supporting this act, I say this to you:
"I will not be fooled by your games."
THEBOSS™
No To Cybercrime Law group in Facebook
Among all groups dedicated to protest against the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 in Facebook, this group have the most number of members with a total of 8,308 Facebook users.
If you are interested in joining this group, check out this link:
THEBOSS™
Articles on "Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012"
No suppression of civil liberties despite cybercrime law, says Lacierda:
http://technology.inquirer.net/17784/no-suppression-of-civil-liberties-despite-cybercrime-law-says-lacierda
No TRO on cybercrime law:
http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=855169&publicationSubCategoryId=63
De Lima vows not to abused anti-cybercrime powers:
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/10/03/12/de-lima-vows-not-abuse-anti-cybercrime-powers
Journalist join fray with e-petition against Cybercrime Law:
SC tackles Cybercrime Law, but no TRO:
No TRO on cybercrime law:
http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=855169&publicationSubCategoryId=63
De Lima vows not to abused anti-cybercrime powers:
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/10/03/12/de-lima-vows-not-abuse-anti-cybercrime-powers
Journalist join fray with e-petition against Cybercrime Law:
"Cleansing" of Cybercrime Law pressed:
Digital Martial Law: 10 scary things about Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012:
SC tackles Cybercrime Law, but no TRO:
http://www.rappler.com/nation/13462-sc-tackles-cybercrime-law,-but-no-tro
READ and BE INFORMED.
THEBOSS™
READ and BE INFORMED.
THEBOSS™
"NO TO CYBERCRIME LAW" photos flood the internet.
Filipinos roar in outrage against the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. These photos continues to flood the internet as a protest to fight for our freedom and rights.
Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012; who's to blame?
The RA No. 10175 a.k.a as the "Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012" takes effect today, October 3, 2012. The law claims that it will serve as a protection for all Filipino netizens against cyberbullies, trolls and plagiarizers. But after carefully reading and reviewing the said law, it appears to be a threat to our freedom, to say what we want and the right to privacy.
The "#NoToCybercrimeLaw" remains one of the trending topics on Twitter and black profile pictures flood Facebook. This day became a war between the social media and the government. Some are blaming Sen. Vicente "Tito" Sotto or PNoy. But who really is to blame?
According to the 1987 Philippine Constitution Article VI Section 27
It means that President Noynoy Aquino will always have the power to veto (Latin word which means "I forbid") whether or not the law should passed. It is odd that the Palace is claiming that the law had been thoroughly reviewed by PNoy before affixing his signature to it, since it is evident that the law is a threat to our rights. The rights which Corazon and Ninoy Aquino fought hard for. Dear Mr. President, have you forgotten that?
What is scary about the law is that it appears to be a nice thing but if you take a close look at it. It really is not. How?
For example, if a netizen posted or tweeted "Our Mayor golfs instead of doing his job." It can be classified as libel and that person can be imprisoned for 12 years.
It is basically more of a protection for celebrities and politicians not for an average Filipino citizen. Whether or not it is the truth, one can be still be damned for saying what you want.
The act is also considered as a mala prohibita law; there need not to be a criminal mind to be convicted. By simply using famous terms such as "Noynoying" and "Sottomy" one can be arrested.
Plus by simply liking or retweeting posts considered as libel, one can be deemed as part of the crime and be convicted.
The law also considers Cybersex as a crime. Yes, this is actually a good thing against porn sites who offers sex for money but the problem is that the law defines cybersex as:
"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."
So does this means that even if it'll be between two consenting adults it will be considered as a crime?
One more thing is that it violates other laws.
For example, Section 19 of RA No. 10175 violates Article III Section 1 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution
"No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws."
There is more things to say against the act but the bottom line is that the law is full of flaws and must be subjected to revisions.
It is ridiculous how the law appears to be not reviewed thoroughly. I say that the law should be repealed.
Next time, Mr. President READ and STUDY whatever it is on your desk before signing it.
THEBOSS™
The "#NoToCybercrimeLaw" remains one of the trending topics on Twitter and black profile pictures flood Facebook. This day became a war between the social media and the government. Some are blaming Sen. Vicente "Tito" Sotto or PNoy. But who really is to blame?
According to the 1987 Philippine Constitution Article VI Section 27
"(1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the President. If he approves the same, he shall sign it; otherwise, he shall veto it and return the same with his objections to the House where it originated, which shall enter the objections at large in its Journal and proceed to reconsider it. If, after such reconsideration, two-thirds of all the Members of such House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of all the Members of that House, it shall become a law. In all such cases, the votes of each House shall be determined by yeas or nays, and the names of the Members voting for or against shall be entered in its Journal. The President shall communicate his veto of any bill to the House where it originated within thirty days after the date of receipt thereof; otherwise, it shall become a law as if he had signed it.
(2) The President shall have the power to veto any particular item or items in an appropriation, revenue, or tariff bill, but the veto shall not affect the item or items to which he does not object."
So what does this mean?It means that President Noynoy Aquino will always have the power to veto (Latin word which means "I forbid") whether or not the law should passed. It is odd that the Palace is claiming that the law had been thoroughly reviewed by PNoy before affixing his signature to it, since it is evident that the law is a threat to our rights. The rights which Corazon and Ninoy Aquino fought hard for. Dear Mr. President, have you forgotten that?
What is scary about the law is that it appears to be a nice thing but if you take a close look at it. It really is not. How?
For example, if a netizen posted or tweeted "Our Mayor golfs instead of doing his job." It can be classified as libel and that person can be imprisoned for 12 years.
It is basically more of a protection for celebrities and politicians not for an average Filipino citizen. Whether or not it is the truth, one can be still be damned for saying what you want.
The act is also considered as a mala prohibita law; there need not to be a criminal mind to be convicted. By simply using famous terms such as "Noynoying" and "Sottomy" one can be arrested.
Plus by simply liking or retweeting posts considered as libel, one can be deemed as part of the crime and be convicted.
The law also considers Cybersex as a crime. Yes, this is actually a good thing against porn sites who offers sex for money but the problem is that the law defines cybersex as:
"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."
So does this means that even if it'll be between two consenting adults it will be considered as a crime?
One more thing is that it violates other laws.
For example, Section 19 of RA No. 10175 violates Article III Section 1 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution
"No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws."
There is more things to say against the act but the bottom line is that the law is full of flaws and must be subjected to revisions.
It is ridiculous how the law appears to be not reviewed thoroughly. I say that the law should be repealed.
Next time, Mr. President READ and STUDY whatever it is on your desk before signing it.
THEBOSS™
"Tweet backs" about the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012
These tweets show the rage of Filipinos all over the country. Clearly, most of us if not all, felt that the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 deprives us of our rights such as FREEDOM OF SPEECH, FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION and RIGHT TO PRIVACY.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)