Blame Mark Zuckerberg

Although I write a column in this newspaper, I was always careful about controversy. There are constraints for writing on radical reforms and political activism. Then there were also the limitations of time and space. Twice a week, a thousand words, that was all.

*      *      *

So when I discovered Facebook I was thrilled to bits. It was as if I had my own newspaper — everyday, every hour, every minute that I choose to reach as many people as I could with my thoughts and ideas and for me to receive theirs. I had many likes and shared these not only on politics but also on music, fashion, food, celebrities, inspiring quotations — the lot. I began with a limited circle of friends and then moved on to friends of friends. But for some advocacies I needed more than custom, I went public. To me Facebook is like owning a newspaper for a continuing conversation. Loved it.

*      *      *

But today, that discovery of the joy of an open society is threatened where I live. Congress with the approval of the Aquino government has passed a law specifically to target users of cyberspace in the Philippines. Perhaps it is a coincidence but the law against social media in the Philippines came almost at the same time that Mark Zuckerberg, the inventor of Facebook announced in his fan page that today more than a billion people log into Facebook each month. Does he know what is happening in the Philippines? Maybe someone ought to tell him what his invention has led us to.

The rationale of Facebook is wonderfully expressed in a video presentation of “Chairs, doorbells, bridges, air planes. These are things that people use to get together and connect. Facebook is also something that over a billion people around the world use to connect with one another.” (See http://www.facebook.com/facebook)

The video is directed by Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu (“Babel,” “21 Grams” and “Amores Perros”). “It starts off with an empty red chair suspended in midair in a forest. Then it moves to chairs with people, first just one then two, and groups around a dinner table, dancing, playing. Then more chairs.”

“Chairs. Chairs are made so that anyone can sit down and take a break. Anyone can sit on a chair,” a woman’s voice assures the viewer. “And if the chair is large enough, they can sit down together. And tell jokes. Or make up stories. Or just listen. Chairs are for people. And that is why chairs are like Facebook.”

“If you’re reading this: thank you for giving me and my little team the honor of serving you,” he wrote. “Helping a billion people connect is amazing, humbling and by far the thing I am most proud of in my life,” said Zuckerberg.

It is Facebook’s first advertising campaign to promote its brand.

*      *      *

Now cast Facebook branding against the cybercrime law recently passed in the Philippines. I think it is Sen. Edgardo Angara who best expressed why a specific law had to be made against Filipino cyberspace netizens. “Just one click and a libelous content goes global.” Angara explained. In other words, the law is directed against its vastness. This is strange in a world that promotes globalization of which Facebook is one expression.

If we are one world then we must be able to connect with each other, both those in power and those out of power. Ah.., that is the problem. Suddenly, those out of power have a weapon that does not rely on capital or lots of money. All you need is a computer, well and some intelligence.

Does that mean that netizens should not be subject to law if they commit a crime as libel? No. But it does mean that the law ought to be equally applied to all, whether in Facebook or in newspapers. The law must not discriminate against netizens. For example if libel is committed by a journalist from the Philippine STAR which has a bigger circulation than say another newspaper, why should he or she be punished more.

With all due respect I disagree with the explanation of Senator Angara on the provision in the Cybercrime Prevention Act that “prescribes a prison term for online libel longer than the penalty for the same crime under the Revised Penal Code.”

“With one click, you can send it all over the world,” he said. Don’t blame the netizen. Blame Mark Zuckerberg for inventing Facebook. Angara said the reach of the Internet was more extensive than that of a newspaper. “You can call someone a thief in the newspaper. There would be a limited number of readers. In this case, with just one click, it’s global,” he said.

As the lawmakers’ reasoning goes, the crime is less about whether it broke the law but how many it has reached.

Could it have been a mistake or was it purposely intended precisely because its vastness becomes a political threat? If it was, then netizens should raise objections on why they should be discriminated against.

“Why was the penalty raised? The only rationale I can think of is that because of the novelty and swiftness, and the spread and reach of information and communication technology, it becomes an aggravating circumstance,” Angara said.

“Section 6 of RA 10175 provides that all crimes “defined and penalized by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and special laws, if committed by, through and with the use of information and communications technologies shall be covered by the relevant provisions of this Act.”

“Provided that the penalty to be imposed shall be one degree higher than that provided for by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and special laws, as the case may be,” the law added.

Libel in the penal code is punishable by imprisonment of no more than four years and two months.”

The new law can be  justified if applied against hacking, identity theft, spamming, cybersex and online child pornography. But it has its downside it can also be used to silence critics.

Senator Teofisto Guingona III was the lone dissenter.

The following senators voted in its favor: Pia Cayetano, Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada, Francis Escudero, Gregorio Honasan, Panfilo Lacson, Manuel “Lito” Lapid, Loren Legarda, Ferdinand Marcos Jr., Aquilino Pimentel III, Ralph Recto, Ramon Revilla Jr., Vicente Sotto III and Manuel Villar.