But outside the definition of who a journalist is, the actual distinction between a regular media outfit and bloggers is the existence of a hierarchy of editorial controls to ensure accuracy in the news and fairness in commentary. This is why traditional journalists themselves sometimes scoff at the notion that “just about anyone can be a journalist”. In fact, Philippine jurisprudence even distinguishes between the amount of latitude given to the media in making factual errors depending on whether it is a “weekly” or a “daily”, with the latter being given wider latitude for mistakes.
But all these miss the point. There is protection accorded by the bill of rights not just to freedom of the press, but to freedom of expression in general. The normative values of these two freedoms are identical: to discern the truth and to facilitate “open, robust and even virulent discussion of pubic issues”. If both freedoms have the same normative content, why should the courts distinguish between an input to the market place of ideas coming from one who earns a living by it and one who does so anyway as a public duty?
A very warm nationalist greetings to everyone for our initial victory against the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. The Supreme Court has finally released a Temporary Restraining Order (for full text, click here)that suspends the implementation of the law for 120 days.
This is another proof that with our militant action and mobilizations like rallying, we gain victories and with the same form of action, we will achieve full victory against the Cybercrime Law! Ergo, CONTINUE THE STRUGGLE!
This is Cybercrime Law in action! (kahit sa October 3 pa magti-take-effect yung law, may umaabuso na.)
This very recent incident will show us how the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (RA 10175) is FLAWED and will indeed cause harm to everyone. These statements by a certain page claiming to be of PNP give us a clear picture of what will happen starting October 3, 2012. One, that is suggested by these statements, is the INVASION of PRIVACY of every netizen. If the government suspects us of having committed a “cybercrime” as defined in the newly-enacted law, they can immediately track us down and monitor our accounts, WITHOUT COURT ORDER.
This is a CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION. The 1987 Philippine Constitution provides in Article III, Section 3. (1) “The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law.”
Familiar, eh? Yes, it exhibits Martial Law, in cyberspace. But not just in cyberspace because threats to our lives continue in the real world — spying, tracking, filing cases against us and the possibility of being punished one degree higher (in case of “online libel”).
Clearly, this law is ANTI-PEOPLE! We CALL the Supreme Court to URGENTLY heed the petitions we filed against the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012!
If the Aquino Government is really democratic, such laws abridging our freedom to exercise our democratic rights should not be passed or approved. In case they have been approved, immediate junking/action to revise shall be done.
PS: I hope we can use this against the Cybercrime Law
PSS: Can we file a case against the PNP if our evidences will tell us that it is indeed the PNP that is owning the page? I can feel it poses threat to the netizens who commented on that post, esp. to that person whom the PNP addressed such statements.
Random Thoughts 