For one thing, Republic Act 10175 has been everything, but entertaining. The careless writing has rendered some, if not most, of its provisions ambiguous. Protests have been made online and offline in the midst of petitions filed for the amendment of the act. Personally, I am against RA 10175. The provisions regarding libel, the takedown and prima facie clause and the outrageous fines cannot be ignored.
Looking at the issue carefully, there are so many initiatives that are less than appealing. Days after objections to the act created a stir nationwide, the government released a statement, which said that amendments would be taken into consideration “in accordance with constitutional processes.” I admire the Palace statement, but at the same time, detest the complacency attributed to the approval of RA 10175.
For the most part though, I detest the cyber attacks conducted against the various government websites in retaliation for the reckless passing of the Cybercrime Prevention Act. I must say that I have to agree that the hackers have, to some extent, deprived the public of access to important government information, which goes against their (hackers) mandate of ensuring the freedom of expression and access of information. There are three reasons why this mode of action does not deserve the praise the public think it deserves.
First, the hackers did not hit the ones truly responsible for the failed piece of legislation. They did, however, create and instigate the agitation and involvement of more people who have nothing to do with the legislation of the act. This necessitates an unnecessary enlargement of the problem at hand, which would only prolong the heated debates and delay the formulation of a solution.
Second, we are not completely sure whether the hackers, who claim to be the comrades of disenchanted netizens, are just taking advantage of the outrage over the passing of the act. The nations affected during the Arab Spring witnessed their very own citizens adamantly opposing and protesting against the government and as such, it gave rise to militias hell-bent on overthrowing the leadership. The problem was that these went on unchecked and paved the way for bandit groups to join the bandwagon, and pursued senselessly chaotic or nihilistic goals. In our case, we should be wary of supporters who claim to champion our cause.
Third, although the end is one and the same, many protesting netizens failed to see that the hackers’ means to achieve their desired end is not the right approach. Saying that a certain piece of legislation needs to be amended is totally different from demanding an amendment by defacing government websites. It is important for us to draw a line between these individuals and ourselves.
I understand that a good number of people are infuriated by this sordid semblance of a law, but it would be best if we remained calm and continue a peaceful means of protest – not to say that the cyber attacks did not shy away from any untoward forms of extreme violence. I’m sure that protests of any kind against the act, be it through hacking, publication or whatsoever is not without reason, but we cannot afford to have anything short of civility. Let us hope that cooler heads would prevail.
