Rappler CEO Maria Ressa Arrested for Cyber Libel
rappler.com
rappler.com
I didn't know ex-post facto laws and retroactive prosecutions were legal in the Philippines.
Happened to us in Peru with Fujimori [1]. Elected a guy that promised to be tough on crime and actually get things done. He did lots of things (tackled terrorism, hyperinflation, etc.), but bit by bit he started gaining more power. Closed congress, installed judges to the supreme court, changed constitution (he actually called for a referendum, and we all voted for it!)
A lot of people criticized him, and he was not jailing them but letting them be. Only if you were a major figure (opposition, some investigative newspapers), did he really go against you.
At the end, he started torturing people, embezzled a few billion dollars, committed massive election fraud, and was somewhat miraculously kicked and jailed after 11 years.
I don't want to draw the parallel too far, but believe me, the difference between autocracy and democracy is not black and white, and the way you play the game, is you try to do the "boil frogs in water" trick, but with people instead of frogs.
(Also, I thought that Ressa broke a law written AFTER she broke it? Which is in most places of the world completely unconstitutional..)
I learned this because of a recent scandal where numerous, well connected, French journalists were operating coordinated 4chan-like online raids and IRL harassment on colleagues they didn't like.
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ligue_du_LOL — Literally the "League of LOL"
Rappler has been subject to harassment and intimidation by the Duterte administration. President Rodrigo Duterte himself had made repeated false allegations against Rappler, including being supposedly funded by the United States Central Intelligence Agency.
The difference between libel and "cyber libel" is just the medium. Arguably it'd be more like the difference between how the 1st and 4th amendments should be applied in your home vs. on Facebook. But like the GP, I'm not aware of specific cyber libel laws or charges.
Non-hate crimes don't have this effect. They don't make a group feel afraid, singled out, and specifically targetted.
It is a pretty lucrative GOTCHA!
Edit: and win
Here is a guide on the US tort framework for libel and slander
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/defamation-law-made-...
You can also be sued by the state under criminal statutes for defamation and this is constitutionally protected under several circumstances that are broad
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law
So people have just made up a social contract about the US that doesnt always exist. This is partially because the definitions vary from state to state, and judge to judge within a single state. But you have to also realize that other countries are often structured the same way.
Tl:dr; many people’s experience in the US is one where there is both civil and criminal liability for making fun of someone and it has always been like this. Just like “those other worse” countries, no matter what your childhood indoctrination convinced you of.
edit: yes, just like in Brazil or Canada, there are some circumstances in some states with some judges where both comedy and offending someone can result in civil and criminal penalties, when those circumstances fit the criteria for libel, slander or defamation. the circumstances may be narrower in those United States than those particular countries due to the first amendment, or perhaps they may be broader because I don't know the particulars of those specific countries.
Seems like a cop-out. Extraordinary claims and all that.
Deducing this has almost nothing to do with the specific topic of how your speech can be sanctioned, but only how the court systems function.
This isn't one of those situations where it makes sense for me to dig and post tort case law just so people can dissect whichever one I post to either be surprised at how reality works, or find a way to carve an exemption about why it doesn't apply at all. Backing up claims this way is not an effective way to synchronize our realities, and it is sillier to conclude that it is an unfathomable reality simply because I don’t feel the need to don’t carry the responsibility of changing your (or other's) mind in this way.
Your response seems like denial to me, as if you need your social contract to be true.
So, here is a more effective way of deducing what you need to know:
A judge will take libel and slander cases from private persons. Which means the judge didn’t dismiss the claim, and civil cases can result in summary judgements, at the discretion of the judge.
A judge will take criminal defamation cases from the state.
You can face civil or criminal liability in the United States for offending people, making fun of them in ways that fit the criteria of libel, slander or defamation. This means you have to defend yourself if in this circumstance or face disruptions to your way of life and freedom, in the United States.
This isn't an extraordinary claim and I would put the ball in your court to disprove it, because this is just an explanation of how the court system works and has almost nothing to do with whether it damaged your ideals about how speech can create liability.
That's not how this works. You make a claim, you back it up. If you don't, you're just adding noise.
I won't be searching for civil tort cases for you, and I did provide you a framework for how to determine this reality already. So yes, that is how this works, by understanding how the civil and criminal court system function.
If I decide not to prove something in the most arbitrary way anyone asks then the different world view does not exist?
Are you sure?
I could see how you might be used to that in other topics, but in case law it wouldnt
I guess Eminem has more resources than the average person, but it’s something I remembered.
This is the opposite of the plaintiff winning
[1]https://www.quora.com/Can-a-U-S-President-sue-a-comedian-for...
But yeah, I think you'd be in for a rude awakening in the US if you made the mistake of going into court thinking that the judge is going to agree that libel is "within reason".
I’ve always tested authority, this one is worth more than my life. I’m currently at a job readiness program in SF, and was flippantly expelled from the BA Clojure group last week based soley on Tweets.
Free speech or die. In my first college course, mass communication, we learned that people decide how to feel. I changed my stance to agree with that, in that course. Now we see the exact opposite!
Edit: I found it. So far it's just a bunch of rambling about how you lost your job for saying something that people percieved as bigoted. What did you say?
It doesn't seem like what you're doing is working, if you're homeless and can't find programming work at $15/hr.
I wish you the best, but maybe it's time to consider taking a different route.
Where does the case of Michelle Carter fall into this.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/mike-ward-comedian-h...
(A customer tried to scam her Airbnb host, and the host made a remark about insinuating that scamming was an Asian personality trait. $5K fine and mandatory "re-education")
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/13/airbnb-ca...
https://www.recode.net/2018/11/26/18111859/maria-ressa-rappl...
Fact check this arrest of Maria Ressa due to cyberlibel? Consider these:
1. The case stemmed from an article posted by Rappler IN MAY 2012 against a businessman, Wilfredo Keng, whereby the said article alleged that CJ Corona used an SUV owned by Keng during his impeachment trial.
2. Keng sued not because of the SUV angle but because the Rappler story maliciously imputed that he is engaged in human trafficking and illegal drugs.
3. Keng sued for cyberlibel in OCTOBER 2017, or 5 years after the original story was posted. There was no cyberlibel law yet when the story came out IN MAY 2012. The Cyber Libel Law came in effect SEPTEMBER 2012.
4. However, instead of heeding the request of Keng to take down the story, Rappler posted an update on the same story in FEBRUARY 2014, when the cyberlibel law was already in effect.
5. Last January 10, the DOJ found probable cause against Maria Ressa, reporter/researcher Reynaldo Santos Jr. and Rappler for cyberlibel.
6. The DOJ rejected the motion of Ressa’s camp to dismiss the charge based on their argument that the filing was beyond the one year prescription period. The DOJ said that under the cyberlibel law, there is no 1 Year prescription period indicated.
7. Judge Rainelda Estacio-Montesa issued a warrant of arrest dated February 12, 2019, TUESDAY.
8. Ressa had the whole day of Wednesday, Feb13, 2019 to post bail. But she did not do so, and instead, invited media people to her office prior to the arrival of the NBI personnel who were to serve the WOA.
These are the facts.
#8 - The order was DATED February 12 but she was served the warrant at 5pm, obviously when courts are closed.
#3 and #4 - Libel expires one year after publication. The NBI was quick to acknowledge this one-year prescriptive period but later flip-flopped.
#3 and #4 - This one is cyber libel. It covers 12 years after publication.
"THIS STORY MAKES PEOPLE: Angry"
1. The Internet is a medium in which stuff is sort of continually published as it's requested. If you're made aware that a claim is false and don't actually have anything to back it up, I think it's naturally on you to amend that or remove it. I don't necessarily see this as a violation of the rule of law if that happened and they took no action.
2. They claimed that someone had "alleged links based on reports". Well if they can produce third-party reports I think they're technically in the right. But there's a problem that people read too much into it when writers hedge what they're saying. Reminds of Himalayan Salt: it's known for it's color and mineral content (impurities), but people often say that OTHER people call it the purest salt. Maybe it is, but that doesn't make sense to me. So I once called a nutritionist on it when they made the claim and they said, "oh I don't know, but other people say that". There's so little burden of proof because of how they say it. Should be a red flag when we read it.