Freedom walls are a staple of campus culture in the internet age, becoming popular online spaces for students to anonymously express themselves. These pages typically operate through a channel where anyone can submit a post, which page administrators may approve to be posted on the freedom wall.
Over time, some submissions have moved beyond the casual confession and crossed into the realm of legal repercussions. From posts publicly naming a supposedly incompetent groupmate to insults toward the picture of a fellow student, freedom walls present a gray area between upholding free expression and becoming possible grounds for cyberlibel cases.
Freedom of expression is not absolute
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Cybercrime Division Agent Heinz Jayshree Laforteza remarks that defamatory imputation, publication, identifiability, and malice are elements of cyberlibel. Admins can be held liable under conditions that they knowingly approve, curate, or publish defamatory or harmful material. Laforteza adds that they may be treated similarly to editors; this editorial control exposes both the page administrator and the post author to potential legal liability.
“This is particularly so when the publication is made with malice and tends to dishonor, discredit, or ridicule the subject,” he says. He further weighs in that freedom of expression is not a default license to violate the rights of others, and that a platform’s positive impact is undermined when it is used as a vehicle for harassment.
The NBI often investigates complaints involving freedom wall pages and other anonymous online platforms. Agenta Laforteza states, “The NBI Cybercrime Division does not apply a one-size-fits-all approach; instead, we evaluate each complaint based on the specific nature of the content and the established facts of the case. Our investigative threshold centers on whether the acts described and the evidence gathered satisfy the elements of Cyber Libel under Republic Act No. 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012), in relation to Articles 353 and 355 of the Revised Penal Code,.”
“Freedom of expression is not absolute,” he expounds. Deleting a post does not erase the offense it carries; liability has already been attached to the admin or author when the post contains cyberlibel elements or other Philippine Law violations. “It is the State’s compelling interest in protecting the reputation of citizens [that] prevails,” he stresses.
False safeguards and an admin’s shared responsibility
“When you have anonymity, you have this illusion that you are somewhat safeguarded from ethical responsibility,” Department of Philosophy at Ateneo de Manila University Assistant Professor Dr. Marc Pasco remarks, adding that it enables the “bahala na” attitude of people who post on freedom walls. Thus, perceived protection can encourage users to post recklessly, believing they can “say whatever [they] want because nobody will know who’s posting this.”.
Anonymity also allows students to express sentiments they would otherwise keep private. Pasco notes, however, that anonymity blurs accountability, and users realize the weight of their words only after posts have already circulated online, emphasizing that the audience cannot unread what they have already read.
Any moral struggles associated with the use of a freedom wall are further complicated by what he describes as the primary function of the common space. Pasco explains that it serves as an outlet for people’s id—the most unconscious part of the human mind—to breathe. The id expresses sentiments that are often exaggerated versions of reality, making these platforms a “second dimension” of the campus they represent.
Despite this, he explains that consumers of these posts must not be gullible about what they read and must research further before believing. “Hindi puwedeng tamad ka na papasok sa freedom wall. Dapat active…you know what perspective to take depending on the posts that you are reading,” he says.
(You cannot be lazy when you enter the freedom wall.)
His insights mirror the concerns raised by Laforteza where anonymity does not remove accountability. While freedom walls remain spaces for students to voice concerns and share experiences, the line between free expression and harmful conduct blurs when posts become defamatory, malicious, or abusive. Experts likewise emphasize the shared responsibility carried by the page administrator, who shapes discourse and campus culture through the content they approve and publish.
While the right to free speech protects anonymous expression, “constitutional guarantee does not extend to defamatory or malicious conduct; individuals and administrators who cross the line into prohibited acts remain legally accountable,” Laforteza says.
Problems and complaints should be directed through proper channels and processes. Rather than relying on anonymity as a shield, both users and administrators must recognize the responsibility that comes with participating in digital spaces. Without that shared responsibility, platforms meant to amplify student voices risk becoming spaces that undermine the very community they well represent.