|
Tuesday, September 30, 2003
Cabaero: e-libel
By Nini B. Cabaero
Beyond 30
The landmark resolution of the Lapu-Lapu City Prosecutor’s Office in dismissing a complaint for libel by e-mail comes at a time when others are pushing for more Internet regulation.
The case was about a woman who complained that her niece wrote an e-mail saying the complainant had wanted to kill a family member in Belgium for the inheritance money.
Acting Lapu-Lapu City Prosecutor Evangeline Gicale approved the findings of Assistant City Prosecutor Exequiel Rubi dismissing the “electronic libel” complaint for lack of probable cause. The resolution said electronic evidence, like an e-mail, cannot be used for criminal action but only in civil action and special proceedings under the New Rules on Electronic Evidence.
The respondent defended herself by saying libel by electronic means is not covered by Article 353 (libel) of the Revised Penal Code. She added the e-mail address of the sender was not hers. Anyone could create a web-based e-mail address using another person’s or a fictitious name. She also said the complaint for libel should have been filed in Belgium where it was first printed.
It is true, anonymity is a feature of the Internet. Any person using a different name could create a website or deface a website without his or her identity being known. Any person using a different name could create an e-mail address and send out letters, damaging or otherwise, to anyone with an e-mail address. But that is not the Internet’s greatest feature.
The advantage of communicating through electronic means is it can bring family members in the Philippines and in parts of the world together. In the case presented before the prosecutor’s office, that connectivity was used for the wrong reasons. There is good and bad to the medium, and how you stand on the question of regulation depends on how you see the Internet’s uses.
One side would want the Internet free of regulation because it enhances democratic exchange, it allows people to publish their views at no or minimal cost and connects people across physical boundaries. To keep the medium responsible and orderly, this side pushes for self-regulation as in the case of the press.
The other side would want some form of regulation by government or worldwide (given the Internet’s reach) to keep the medium responsible and more effective. They note the Internet’s speed and easy access and how it could tolerate harmful or even criminal content.
In India, government has ordered 200 Internet service providers to block an e-group or an online discussion group on Yahoo.com for spewing anti-government material.
In France, organizations opposed to racism and anti-Semitism demanded that the Internet service Yahoo!, with headquarters in California, stop presenting Nazi objects on its US online auction site.
The French court’s decision was raised to the US courts for implementation in America. The US court ruled that the French court decision was unenforceable because it is inconsistent with US constitutional law and policy, and is repugnant to First Amendment values because compliance would involve an impermissible restriction on speech. The French appealed the decision to the US Court of Appeals.
These are examples of the growing interest in Internet regulation coming especially from people unconvinced of its benefits.
The resolution by the Lapu-Lapu Prosecutor’s Office of the electronic libel complaint, for now, saved the e-mail from further restrictions. Time will tell if, as the Internet evolves some more, the clamor for regulation will grow louder than the calls for no regulation.
(Ms. Cabaero can be reached at e-mail address ninicab@sunstar.com.ph)
(September 30, 2003 issue)
Write letter to the editor. Click here.
Join the Sun.Star message board. Click here. |
|
[ return
to top ]
[ home
]
|
LOCAL NEWS
BUSINESS
OPINION
SPORTS
LIFESTYLE
FEATURE
SUPERBALITA
WEEKEND
|
