MANILA, Philippines — The posting of libelous messages in the internet is not myth anymore.  It is now a stark reality.  And what is ironic is that perpetrators/internet users can keep their identities a secret or they may use alias.  The victim of said libelous messages also may not know where the message comes from since the perpetrator/internet user may conveniently falsify his true domicile.  Worse, the victim does not have an idea of the path or the routes the message went through before reaching him.  Why is this so?  Because of the unique set-up of the internet where millions of computers all around the world are interconnected using a common technology and messages go to different routes unstoppable by any person or entity.  Since messages sent through the internet are considered written materials they are considered a libel.

One may ask: are our existing traditional laws in the Philippines sufficient to cover libel in the internet?  Particularly libelous messages transmitted through the different types of social media like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube.  The answer is no.

What makes the application of traditional laws to libelous messages transmitted through the internet difficult is the fact that different countries have different libel laws.  Also, the matter of juridical jurisdiction has to be settled considering that in law suits arising from internet-related cases physical boundaries are not relevant.  Considering too, the multinational nature of the internet - there may be more than one legal system that is applicable in resolving cyber disputes.

Significantly, the application of libel laws in internet-based cases involves a clear-cut definition of the extent of the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech.  Should freedom of speech be controlled or should freedom of speech be protected and allowed without restriction?

In the United States, there is a 1991 well-known case regarding the liability of electronic bulletin board operators popularly referred to as “sysops”.  The case titled Cubby, Inc. v. Compuserve, Inc., involves the republishing of defamatory materials made in a publication carried on a computerized database.  More particularly, this case involves a libel suit filed by a publisher of an electronic newsletter who claimed that his newsletter was libeled by another newsletter of Compuserve.  The US court acquitted Compuserve based on the principle that an on-line service provider is a distributor and therefore is not liable for libel.  Considering too that Compuserve did not have responsibility for editorial control since Compuserve subcontracted to a third party, Cameron Communications, Inc. the examination of the content of the on-line publication.

In another later case in 1994 titled Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co., Stratton Oakmont, an investment bank sued Prodigy Services Company for US$ 200 million on the basis of statements made by an unknown source that accused the bank of fraudulent transactions in connection with the initial public of certain stocks.  The offering was described as “a 100% criminal fraud” and Prodigy was portrayed also as “a cult of brokers who either lie living or get fired.”  The issue is whether Prodigy is a publisher of the alleged libelous statement.

Prodigy is a well-known US computer online service reportedly with at least 2 million subscribers.  Prodigy has a bulletin board called “Money Talk” which members use to post statements on stocks, investments and other financial matters.

The US decided cases ruled that as to whether on-line statements are libelous or not depends on whether the owners and operators of on-line systems posting the defamatory statements are considered as distributors of information or as publishers of information.

The court held Prodigy Services, an on-line service provider, guilty because it exercised some kind of content control on messages transmitted through its facilities.  Prodigy Services used a kind of software screening program which automatically prescreens all bulletin boards postings for defamatory language and enabled it to perform the role of an editor and is therefore is liable as publisher.

Have a joyful day!