Damn the Man or the Old Man?!

Well, actually, damn them both!

The Old Man

When you think about it these law makers are literally OLD and with the passing of the cybercrime law, it seems to me that they don’t have a decent grasp of the internet, technology and the changing modern world.
As we now know, 4 senators filed an almost identical cybercrime bill: Enrile, Angara, Revilla, and Marcos.
Angara says that they “are just importing the law of libel for print and broadcast into the Internet. Otherwise there would be a zone of impunity. I can begin attacking maliciously the people I hate.”

Enrile previously claimed to not know what a powerpoint is. Marcos says that he has been a netizen since the 90s. Revilla is a negligible variable. But whatever, the law has been passed.

Collage Photos from the net

Lawmakers and supporters of the cybercrime law keep mumbling arguments that they merely extending the already existing revised penal code to include a platform which is has previously not covered, the internet or “a computer system or any other similar means which may be devised in the future”.

They argue that if a regular journalist can be sued for libel, why can’t a blogger? Or a person who tweets?
If any of these people actually understood the internet, they would know that all this is not a case of simply just applying the law into another medium.

The internet is a totally different animal all together. It is not TV, radio or print media. It is not composed of just media stations and publishers.

Among the many other things that live in cyberspace, the internet is also composed of individual citizens who also have the right to freedom of speech and privacy along with a host of other rights that the cyber crime law seeks to violate.

The internet is composed differently and runs differently and it takes a coherent understanding of the medium before any regulation can be crafted fairly.

Old men, if you do not understand the internet, then you are not qualified to craft such laws and insert such clauses as the cyber crime bill and the cyber libel clause.

Then again, are you really just oldies who don’t get it? Did you really miss the point?

Or was regulation and freedom oppression really the point?

So, Damn the Man

In the end, it is still THE MAN who is just looking to extend his powers over a new medium that it currently does not have control over. They obviously seek to regulate and control the internet now.

Old lawmakers might be alarmed by what has happened all over the world as they looked to the recent Arab Spring. Decades of strong men and dictators have been brought down by social media. To an old guy who doesn’t fully get it the internet and social media now becomes this big threat to his position, his political tricks, his power, and his other tyrannical ways.

Again, we look to Sotto. With the internet, his plagiarism did not go unpunished. Netizens caught up with his tricks over and over again, and they protested. This placed a major dent on his camp’s plans and a gigantic dent on his public image.

Clearly, the internet with all its so called advantages is seen as a wild card by people in power because it can topple them just like that. This probably scares them to death, doesn’t it?

I see why the internet will logically freak them out. Gone are the days when being a trapo was so much easier. Control PR over tri media, pander to your constituents, look for allies and cohorts, buy votes, rig elections, bribe some people, etc.

But now they have to police the internet and social media too? Because you’ll never know when some random citizen who will post pictures of your epal campaign online or google translate your speech to figure out that you’ve actually copied it off US Senator Kennedy’s speech.

Oh, but wait… Old Man, you can’t even police the internet because in addition to your shady grasp of how it all works, there are also no laws in place to do this.

So, what’s a Trapo to do?!

Well, why not make a law to regulate the internet, then? 

Brilliant! So, let’s go do that. 

While we’re at it, let’s make it sort of vague (provision for future situations) and let’s also put a higher sanction on it. Then let's also regulate sites, shut them down if we don’t like what they’re saying, and while we’re at it lets also collect user data.

Pretty clever isn't it? 

The next thing you know, our government suddenly has the power to regulate cyberspace as if we are all in China.

Is it not that there is a worldwide criticism on why China is inhibiting its citizen’s rights to free expression? Why does are our lawmakers find it necessary to suddenly implement the same type of censorship on us?
According to Slate Editor William Dobson modern strong men have evolved and are now fluent in democracy and human rights. He says these days “laws are written in vague terms and then applied capriciously against those who question the regime's ways”

Countries like Russia are said to have all sorts of laws to squash all sort of activists and anarchy at its root. Just recently, the punk rock band Pussy Riot’s members were charged with “hooliganism motivated by religious hatred”. What does that even mean?

Could it be that our own lawmakers created the cyber crime bill with the very same purpose?

Having said this, why don’t we ask them the same thing that they kept on asking us, the people who are enraged by the cyber crime law?

So, politicians and law makers, if you don’t plan on doing anything wrong, why are you so afraid of the internet?

The difference between these law makers and the people who are against the cyber crime law is that we are fighting for our freedom to speak and our right to have decent and competent politicians serve us. These pro cyber crime law figures however are simply looking for a way to control the internet and though this keep their own skeletons securely locked up in their own closets.

There is nothing wrong with creating a law to apprehend those who engage in child pornography,  sexual harassment, financial scams, illegal gambling and other similar crimes committed online. This was supposed to be the main purpose of the cyber crime law.

BUT it is every bit WRONG to use this purpose as a front to pass regulations that’s meant to seriously control the internet and crack down on the citizen’s right to freedom of speech and privacy.

From the movie Empire Records

So, the anarchistic spirit in me would like to say DAMN THE MAN, let's please save our country from this censorship.  

Yes to the TRO on the cyber crime law. May it truly lead to something fruitful and let it not be some lame pacifying move to simply keep the citizen protest at bay.