Judge: No risk in liking, reposting libelous posts

CEBU, Philippines - The mere liking, sharing or reposting of defamatory posts, photos or videos in any social networking site will not be considered online libel as what many have feared, according to a retired regional trial court judge.

Retired judge Meinrado Paredes, who was one of the speakers of the 34th Quarterly Meeting en banc of the Cebu Citizens-Press Council at the Marcelo Fernan Press Center in Barangay Lahug yesterday, explained only the author of the original post will be liable for libel because the people who shared or liked them are just exercising their right to express.

He also said the only time someone who comments on an online statement becomes liable for libel is when he or she adds any defamatory statements about the person being talked about.

For journalists in print media that have online editions, Paredes said, they can be charged for libel under the Revised Penal Code or the Republic Act 10175 or the Cybercrime Law. He said the law carries stiffer penalties than the code.

Another speaker, Cebu Bloggers Society legal consultant Ethelbert Ouano, said the law actually discourages the use of the Internet as a tool of democracy and opens an estimated 30 million Filipinos who are active online to unexpected libel cases.

He also cited the inconsistencies of the Cybercrime Law as it applies to online comments from other countries that do not consider these defamatory.

He urged the Supreme Court to review the RA 10175 saying there should be balance and that the freedom of speech of netizens should be afforded the strongest protection.

Meanwhile, the council also asked Congress to clarify the ambiguities in the Cybercrime Law and the Supreme Court decision, specifically on the rule regarding repeated libel as it applies to the regular media and online.

The call was made in their resolution announced at the end of the meeting.

The council also reaffirmed its position earlier expressed in 2008 and 2012 that it supports the removal of imprisonment as the penalty for libel in favor of damages.

“Jail sanction has been used to terrorize and oppress journalists, silencing with the threat of detention press criticism of government and reporter matters of public interest,” the resolution read.

Part of the resolution also asked the legislators to be clear on the venue of libel to be filed as a result of statements deemed defamatory. The council asked that the location of the principal location of the business be taken into consideration.

They said the present rule on venue has been used to harass media practitioners by requiring them to go to court in faraway places.  (FREEMAN)