I have so far published the following blogs, http://quierosaber.wordpress.com/2012/10/04/damage-control-over-cybercrime-law/
http://quierosaber.wordpress.com/2012/10/06/internet-users-bewail-aquinos-support-of-cybercrime-law/, where I strongly criticized the legality of the cybercrime law going after those who are simply expressing their opinion and/or exasperation on certain personalities and charging them for online libel.
This is what makes the law infirm and controversial as it is being decided now by the Supreme Court (SC).
There is no doubt the country needs this law, but it should be a law made to prevent the commission of dreadful crimes perpetrated by unscrupulous people in order to protect the public or entities from any downside.
It should not be, therefore, a self-serving law.
Sen. Teofisto Guingona could not have said it any better when he appeared before the SC, which is hearing the various petitions questioning the constitutionality of the anti-cybercrime measure, saying: “We fear that this law gives the State unlimited powers to invade our lives, intruding into spheres long protected by constitutional rights. We are anxious that it will limit our rights to ventilate matters of public concern and interest, especially matters of importance to us, which involve transparency, accountability, and people participation.”
He added: “We are angry because we have always trusted that laws are for the good of persons and society. The Cybercrime Prevention Act is a law that threatens and assaults our fundamental Constitutional right to speak, our right against unreasonable searches and seizures, our right against double jeopardy, and our right to be accorded equal protection of the laws.”
In one of the above mentioned blogs, I had this to say: “It is not like we are fomenting trouble. We are simply expressing our freedom of speech and those who gets alluded to or named should not run amok, but rather be more considerate, serviceable and sensitive to the needs of the Filipino people.”
What is being said may not necessarily conform with the thinking of those being alluded to, but being politicians or in public service, you, honorable sirs, are fair game. And we are not stupid, nor blind not to be able to see your stand, your motivation, your interest, and even your body language, on matters concerning certain issues that tends to prejudice the interest and well being of the larger number of people.
This law should not be used against those who are law abiding citizens, who want simply to exercise their freedom of expression borne out of frustration and exasperation over self-centered personalities and, some, simpletons at that. Not that you are in power and influential that you could just curtail our freedom and on top of that, prosecute us.
Come on! Give us a break.