
Rappler CEO Maria Ressa Arrested for Cyber Libel - uptown
https://www.rappler.com/nation/223411-maria-ressa-arrested-for-cyber-libel-february-2019
======
cobbzilla
"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.

~~~
nraynaud
It could be a continuous crime, online publication crime are continuous in
French law.

~~~
rebuilder
Does that mean that failure to take down an article is criminal if posting
that article would now be criminal?

~~~
pygy_
No idea, but the period of prescription starts when a libelous/harassing item
is taken down.

I learned this because of a recent scandal where numerous, well connected,
French journalists were operating coordinated 4chan-like online raids and IRL
harassment on colleagues they didn't like.

[https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ligue_du_LOL](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ligue_du_LOL)
— Literally the "League of LOL"

------
klenwell
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._

------
tokai
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
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.

~~~
jordigh
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
When a man beats his wife regularly, is that a hate crime against women? Why
or why not?

------
S_A_P
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
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-...](https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/defamation-law-made-
simple-29718.html)

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
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.

~~~
gammateam
This is a thread about libel and slander really. Not just being the butt of a
joke. I included some links, one on civil tort and one on criminal defamation.
The criminal defamation article has links from a variety of states and time
periods.

edit: yes, just like in Brazil or Canada, there are some circumstances in some
states with some judges where both comedy and offending someone can result in
civil and criminal penalties, when those circumstances fit the criteria for
libel, slander or defamation. the circumstances may be narrower in those
United States than those particular countries due to the first amendment, or
perhaps they may be broader because I don't know the particulars of those
specific countries.

~~~
WillPostForFood
You replied to a comment specifically about being the butt if a joke (making
fun of Brazilians)

~~~
gammateam
Yes, I did. If that joke satisfies the criteria of libel, slander or
defamation then you can face civil or criminal penalties in the United States
as well.

~~~
shadofx
You "can", however case law in the US is very deeply anti-plaintiff, due to
centuries of supreme court justices voting in favor of free speech. A joke
would not satisfy the criteria for libel.

------
jdp23
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-
rappl...](https://www.recode.net/2018/11/26/18111859/maria-ressa-rappler-
facebook-mark-zuckerberg-philippines-kara-swisher-recode-decode-podcast)

------
thiefmeister
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
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
#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.

------
heyyyouu
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.

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

------
elipsey
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"

------
TallGuyShort
>> 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.

