IRR Cybercrime Law & non-libelous rants (Bonus for Media Law students)

IRR for the Cybercrime Prevention Act

Examples of “outrageous” non-libelous rants

(Bonus for Media Law students)

Bonus questions for media law students. Instructions: For five points, please give your suggested provisions for the  Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Cybercrime Prevention Act, with the purpose of preventing harassment suits against media practitioners and netizens, bearing in mind the topics taken up in class on defenses in libel/ exemption from punishment (points will be given on a “first-come-first-served” basis: do not repeat answers that have been posted). The bonus points will be added to the examinee’s score for the third quarterly test. Please post your complete answers in the comments section of this post or in your own platform (if the latter: please paste the link in the comments section).You may use a pseudonym (in which case, give R your real name) or your student number.  (deadline: 12 noon of Feb. 25, 2014, EDSA people’s uprising anniversary).  For ease of evaluating your answers, please use the format provided below and fill in the blanks:

In addition to the grounds provided for in the Rules of Court, the following shall constitute grounds for the dismissal of any libel complaint:

If the statement, communication, report, comment, is:

1.__________________________ ____________________________________________

2.____________________________ _________________________________________

3._____________________________. ________________________________________

        The investigating prosecutor shall motu proprio dismiss the libel complaint if, on its face, the complaint shows that the complainant or the person subject matter of the statement, communication, report, is a ___________________ or a ____________________ and the statement, communication or  report is __________________________________________________________.  

        For another 5 points, please post or re-post here what you consider as your most “outrageous rant” or expression of disgust, condemnation, disapproval, disparagement, etc., and explain why it a form of privileged fair comment (the commentary should be a minimum of 146 characters/letters). You may use other netizens’ rant or expression of disgust, etc. Do not use posts of professional journalists or columnists. In  the second paragraph, explain why the statement is considered a form of privileged fair comment and provide the legal basis.  (deadline: 12 noon of Feb. 25, 2014, no extension)