9 ms·

Rappler CEO Maria Ressa Arrested for Cyber Libel

78 points by uptown 8y ago

tokai 8y ago
Is cyber libel really the official charge? Why would you have to specify cyber? I makes as much sence as being charged with acoustic or offset libel to me.
- dx87 8y ago
  We've got hate crime laws even though we already have murder, assault and harrasment laws. Might just be another way of tacking on extra punishment due to the nature of the crime.
  - TallGuyShort 8y ago
    That's not really what hate crime laws are, though. They're all about the motivation. Reforming a person who threatens to kill because they're angry about a personal dispute is very different from reforming a person who threatens to kill because they don't like the color of someone else's skin. 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.
  - jordigh 8y ago
    Hate crime laws exist because hate crimes have a worse effect on society. Someone being killed because they were (say) black makes other black people afraid of being killed for the same reason. Hate spreads and can motivate other aggressors. Non-hate crimes don't have this effect. They don't make a group feel afraid, singled out, and specifically targetted.
    - hopler 8y ago
      When a man beats his wife regularly, is that a hate crime against women? Why or why not?
  - markovbot 8y ago
    A better comparison would be homicide vs vehicular homicide: it's got a different name when done with a different medium
- 1123581321 8y ago
  It depends on the country, but generally means that the state has passed a cybercrime law and laid out a different definition for libel conducted online. Most likely a definition that is easier to prosecute than older traditional libel laws, for better or worse.
- creaghpatr 8y ago
  Probably due to the scalability. Kind of like the WhatsApp abuse in India or Fake NewsTM in the US it brings a greater danger to the reputation of the victim. Of course, Maria Ressa is obviously innocent, but journalists might want to think twice about asking the government or private sector to snuff out 'fake' news.
- gruez 8y ago
  There's also fraud, but also wire fraud, mail fraud.
S_A_P 8y ago
Tangentally related. Joe Rogan had Rafinha Bastos on his podcast this week. He is a comedian from Brazil. Apparently, he has come to the US because he was getting sued for making fun of people in Brazil. Similar things seem to happen in Canada for off color remarks "offending" people. I would hope that people of every political stripe in the US think about that. Being able to speak freely is something that isn't to be taken for granted.
- gammateam 8y ago
  You can be sued by private persons for making fun of people in the US 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-simple-29718.html 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 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.
  - S_A_P 8y ago
    you can sue anyone for anything you can convince a lawyer to take a case for. Doesn't mean you can win, and I certainly haven't seen cases where the butt of a joke sued and won. I would definitely be interested in reading about the case that proves me wrong.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - gammateam 8y ago
cobbzilla 8y ago
"The Department of Justice (DOJ) recommended the filing in court of cyber libel charges against Ressa and former Rappler researcher Reynaldo Santos Jr over a story published in May 2012 – or 4 months before the law that they allegedly violated was enacted." I didn't know ex-post facto laws and retroactive prosecutions were legal in the Philippines.
- kw71 8y ago
  Why not? I haven't seen anyone portraying the country as a state that respects the rule of law lately.
  - anoncoward111 8y ago
    This 100%. I originally thought this was the US DOJ. When I saw it was PH, I said forget it. Duerte runs a junta. PH history is full of judicial malpractice.
    - dirtylowprofile 8y ago
      I’m from PH and we don’t feel we were run by a Junta or dictator as what you westeners like. We can criticize him online, publicly and go on with our lives. Duterte has several critics on newspaper, radio, online etc. Ressa broke the law and does not mean she’s excempted from it.
      - zzleeper 8y ago
        It's much easier to be an autocrat if people support you and don't realize what you are doing. 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..) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Fujimori https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Fujimori
openloop 8y ago
Free speech?
klenwell 8y ago
The headline leaves out important context that would settle some of the incidental questions commentators have fixated on in this thread and the article frankly buries the lede (perhaps by necessity): 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.
TallGuyShort 8y ago
>> 4 months before the law that they allegedly violated was enacted 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.
duxup 8y ago
And no bail.... for libel. That seems odd.
jdp23 8y ago
Here's an excellent interview with Maria Ressa (by Kara Swisher) from late last year that gives some context. https://www.recode.net/2018/11/26/18111859/maria-ressa-rappler-facebook-mark-zuckerberg-philippines-kara-swisher-recode-decode-podcast https://www.recode.net/2018/11/26/18111859/maria-ressa-rappl...
heyyyouu 8y ago
The Philipines has one of the most screwed up legal systems and a horrible record against journalists. It really makes you appreciate US law, first amendment law, the US bail system/right to a speedy trail, and many other aspects of our judicial system when you see their system in practice.
elipsey 8y ago
I love the mood voting bar on the right hand side of the page. It's like a laugh track for the news, in case you're not sure how to feel. "THIS STORY MAKES PEOPLE: Angry"
thiefmeister 8y ago
CYBER LIBEL 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.
- osip 8y ago
  Not so fast. #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.
  - thiefmeister 8y ago
    #8 - she had the whole day (feb 13) to post bail. well, she was able to post bail within a week anyway. #3 and #4 - This one is cyber libel. It covers 12 years after publication.

78 points by uptown 8y ago

Is cyber libel really the official charge? Why would you have to specify cyber? I makes as much sence as being charged with acoustic or offset libel to me.

dx87 8y ago
We've got hate crime laws even though we already have murder, assault and harrasment laws. Might just be another way of tacking on extra punishment due to the nature of the crime.
- TallGuyShort 8y ago
  That's not really what hate crime laws are, though. They're all about the motivation. Reforming a person who threatens to kill because they're angry about a personal dispute is very different from reforming a person who threatens to kill because they don't like the color of someone else's skin. 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.
- jordigh 8y ago
  Hate crime laws exist because hate crimes have a worse effect on society. Someone being killed because they were (say) black makes other black people afraid of being killed for the same reason. Hate spreads and can motivate other aggressors. Non-hate crimes don't have this effect. They don't make a group feel afraid, singled out, and specifically targetted.
  - hopler 8y ago
    When a man beats his wife regularly, is that a hate crime against women? Why or why not?
- markovbot 8y ago
  A better comparison would be homicide vs vehicular homicide: it's got a different name when done with a different medium
1123581321 8y ago
It depends on the country, but generally means that the state has passed a cybercrime law and laid out a different definition for libel conducted online. Most likely a definition that is easier to prosecute than older traditional libel laws, for better or worse.
creaghpatr 8y ago
Probably due to the scalability. Kind of like the WhatsApp abuse in India or Fake NewsTM in the US it brings a greater danger to the reputation of the victim. Of course, Maria Ressa is obviously innocent, but journalists might want to think twice about asking the government or private sector to snuff out 'fake' news.
gruez 8y ago
There's also fraud, but also wire fraud, mail fraud.

S_A_P 8y ago

Tangentally related. Joe Rogan had Rafinha Bastos on his podcast this week. He is a comedian from Brazil. Apparently, he has come to the US because he was getting sued for making fun of people in Brazil. Similar things seem to happen in Canada for off color remarks "offending" people. I would hope that people of every political stripe in the US think about that. Being able to speak freely is something that isn't to be taken for granted.

gammateam 8y ago
You can be sued by private persons for making fun of people in the US 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-simple-29718.html 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 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.
- S_A_P 8y ago
  you can sue anyone for anything you can convince a lawyer to take a case for. Doesn't mean you can win, and I certainly haven't seen cases where the butt of a joke sued and won. I would definitely be interested in reading about the case that proves me wrong.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - gammateam 8y ago

cobbzilla 8y ago

"The Department of Justice (DOJ) recommended the filing in court of cyber libel charges against Ressa and former Rappler researcher Reynaldo Santos Jr over a story published in May 2012 – or 4 months before the law that they allegedly violated was enacted." I didn't know ex-post facto laws and retroactive prosecutions were legal in the Philippines.

kw71 8y ago
Why not? I haven't seen anyone portraying the country as a state that respects the rule of law lately.
- anoncoward111 8y ago
  This 100%. I originally thought this was the US DOJ. When I saw it was PH, I said forget it. Duerte runs a junta. PH history is full of judicial malpractice.
  - dirtylowprofile 8y ago
    I’m from PH and we don’t feel we were run by a Junta or dictator as what you westeners like. We can criticize him online, publicly and go on with our lives. Duterte has several critics on newspaper, radio, online etc. Ressa broke the law and does not mean she’s excempted from it.
    - zzleeper 8y ago
      It's much easier to be an autocrat if people support you and don't realize what you are doing. 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..) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Fujimori https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Fujimori

openloop 8y ago

Free speech?

klenwell 8y ago

The headline leaves out important context that would settle some of the incidental questions commentators have fixated on in this thread and the article frankly buries the lede (perhaps by necessity): 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.

TallGuyShort 8y ago

>> 4 months before the law that they allegedly violated was enacted 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.

duxup 8y ago

And no bail.... for libel. That seems odd.

jdp23 8y ago

Here's an excellent interview with Maria Ressa (by Kara Swisher) from late last year that gives some context. https://www.recode.net/2018/11/26/18111859/maria-ressa-rappler-facebook-mark-zuckerberg-philippines-kara-swisher-recode-decode-podcast https://www.recode.net/2018/11/26/18111859/maria-ressa-rappl...

heyyyouu 8y ago

The Philipines has one of the most screwed up legal systems and a horrible record against journalists. It really makes you appreciate US law, first amendment law, the US bail system/right to a speedy trail, and many other aspects of our judicial system when you see their system in practice.

elipsey 8y ago

I love the mood voting bar on the right hand side of the page. It's like a laugh track for the news, in case you're not sure how to feel. "THIS STORY MAKES PEOPLE: Angry"

thiefmeister 8y ago

CYBER LIBEL 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.

osip 8y ago
Not so fast. #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.
- thiefmeister 8y ago
  #8 - she had the whole day (feb 13) to post bail. well, she was able to post bail within a week anyway. #3 and #4 - This one is cyber libel. It covers 12 years after publication.