Noy can’t stand criticisms

FRONTLINE

By Ninez Cacho-Olivares

Veil by veil, Noynoy is being shown up, not as a transparent, democratic president, but as a closet dictator who moreover shuns transparency and democratic ideals.

This face of Noynoy was again unveiled with his approval of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, which goes against the constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression.

What is more ironic is that even as there is now a libel law against cyberwriters, the fact is that many of these users of social media sites may not even be Philippine-based and as such, they cannot possibly fall under the jurisdiction of Philippine laws.

Most users of social media such as Twitter and Facebook are vulnerable to this new law, but not those users of Twitter and Facebook who heap praises on Noynoy and his yellow aides, because those who are really being targeted by Noynoy and his administration, are his critics, and Noynoy, who is now enjoying power and position, has become onion-skinned and highly allergic to criticisms.

Why else put the clamps on social media, especially as Noynoy and his boys have always claimed to be great users of social media and have even crowed too many times that one of the reasons Noynoy won the presidency in 2010 was that it was social media that had catapulted Noynoy to the presidency.

It is on record that early into his presidency, Noynoy’s social media user boys left a presidential Facebook page for comments and as these were all praises for Noynoy — especially from his Yellow horde, there was no censorship at all — until of course, the harsh criticisms and comments the Palace boys didn’t care for, came around, and all too suddenly, the same boys started deleting these comments and criticisms to make it appear that Noynoy is still popular and is still bereft of social media users’ criticisms against him.

This is a major reason for the inclusion of the online libel law in the cybercrime law signed by Noynoy. He can’t stand criticisms and even the truth conveyed by his critics through regular and social media.

Ironically, even as Noynoy embraces the law on online libel, and has done nothing to decriminalize our libel laws, he and his boys are big on slandering and libelling their political foes, knowing they can get away with it, since they are in power and position.

While it is true that there are many social media users who come up with really libelous articles and even resort to cyberbullying, in general, these are usually not picked up by the regular media.

There are, of course, exceptions — especially in cases of the regular media picking up Twitter messages and Facebook comments — even gossipy ones — that some media make public to propagate their own biased views but chances are, these messages are normally taken with a grain of salt.

A cybercrime law could be a good thing, however, if it is used by government to catch criminals who engage in hacking, identity theft, spamming, phishing, denial-of-service (DoS) attacks, malware, child pornography, cybersex and cyber prostitution. But including libel as a crime in the same cybercrime law which is punishable under the Revised Penal Code?

In the first place, there are too many users of social media whose identities are unknown, as too many of these users use aliases and pseudonyms to hide their identity, which is one reason they come up with such outrageous comments.

In the second place, anyone out to get a social media user on the new online libel law can easily frame anyone with the crime, as a malevolent techie can easily open a Facebook or Twitter account in a foe’s name and come up with really libelous and slanderous comments, yet that person may not even be a user of social media and has no account of Facebook and Twitter at all.

Chances are high that this newly signed law will be challenged before the Supreme Court in questioning its constitutionality, on the basis that such an online libel law violates the constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression, as it tends to curtail such freedom.

The court may uphold it, but again it may not, even if there has been no one prior to the emergence of social media — who has been charged for freely expressing their views in the streets. If people can shout and “slander” the administration, why can’t the social media user?