The Cybercrime Rules

I have attached a new section to my Policy and Terms in view of an apparent tightening of government authority on expression in the Philippines. This is reflected in the passage of cybercrime legislation now before the Supreme Court where it is being tested for adherence to Constitutional mandates. Included in the law is a strange and unexplained provision that doubles penalties for internet libel, as if the internet were a devious and sinful medium. And it is reflected in proposed legislation by seven House of Representative members to declare entertainer Justin Bieber "persona non grata" in the Philippines (banned from the Philippines) for doing a mocking satirical photo of Philippine boxer Manny Pacquiao subsequent to his recent loss by knockout.

This kind of authoritarianism seems to emerge from  powerful people from time to time in the Philippines.  Powerful individuals believe earnestly that they are permitted to set the rules as to what others are allowed to do or say, regardless of the letter or SPIRIT of the Constitutional provision for free expression. I believe it is this same sense of righteous individual power that has led to repeated coups in the past when powerful people don't like the tone of what others in government are doing or saying. Or when vigilantes are allowed by city mayors to prowl the streets shooting criminal suspects. I think it is dangerous to the State when powerful people are allowed to define what laws mean based on their own emotions.

Free speech in the Philippines means "you are free to speak as long as you say what I want you to say."

The VALUES upon which America was founded get lost in Philippine authoritarianism. Values get turned upside down, and the libel law is one of the tools for upending good values.

Because it is a real fact that the Philippines has distinct authoritarian tendencies, it is best to prepare for them.

Libel is a strange crime. It is one person's view of damages versus another's. Malice is in the eye of the beholder, and malice is what underpins a libel suit. One cannot gather forensics evidence on malice, fingerprints or DNA. It is just arguments. And hereabouts,  the courts seem to listen more intently to the arguments of the powerful than arguments from those with little power.

Furthermore, the accused is considered guilty at the levying of a charge. And truth is no defense.

So I need to lay the best groundwork possible to deal with the threat of accusation from the empowered. It is my goal that the ground rules allow for the widest range of responsible free expression in this blog.

Take pornography. Showing naked breasts is offensive to some. Showing the widest ranges of sexual engagement is offensive to others. Violence is offensive to others.

Words are nothing more than linear photos. Rather like sexual photos, and this blog presents a variety of photos DESIGNED to awaken the mind. Where we get into problems is if we mention names. That is like showing a politician in a sex scene.

It may be true that he is a public figure. It may be true that he is engaged in sex. But he din't want to be shown engaged in sex. Or stealing. Or abuse in its many forms.

We put politicians and priests and bloggers and others into the word pictures.

It gets dicey, for sure.

The difference is that we seek to provoke ideas not sexual arousal. Our effort to generate ideas is hindered if we talk in generalities instead of specifics. We can only achieve our goal, a healthy, wealthy and wise Philippines if we are provocative.

We leave the sexual arousal to others, in the main. I mean, Angry Maude is a walking bombshell, so who knows what tittilations she inspires.

It is important that readers understand that this is a blog substantially of opinion, not fact; of satire, not truth; of guess, not measurement. In other words, we intentionally distort truth, in the name of meaning, and articles have precious little foundation in fact. Therefore, any suggestion that this blog site contains malice cannot possibly be true. Parable is not malice; it is a lesson. Satire is not malice; it is literary art in the name of meaning. Opinion is not malice; it is a point of view.

Let me put it another way. When I suggest the President of the Philippines is an idiot in a blog, I don't mean he is an idiot. And if you wait a blog or two, you are likely to read unending praise for him.

The only measurement of good intent or bad is found in the sum of all expressions in the hundreds of blogs contained in The Society of Honor by Joe America. An unbiased reader will find articles rich with opinion, discovery, lessons, and humor, all in the name of building a healthy, wealthy and wise Philippines. To ascribe "malice" to this effort, or any small aspect of the effort, is to grossly distort the aims, ambitions and achievements of the authors, publisher, and commenters.

Visitors are advised to know and understand how this blog operates, and the ground rules, before reading or commenting

This is the new section of my Policy and Terms

Cybercrime Protections (Addition January 6, 2013)

• Nothing in this blog should be taken as a truth. The articles are rife with satire, exaggeration and opinion compiled to produce certain meanings, meanings intended to advance the well-being of the Philippines. Many expressions are intentionally provocative to work through the armor of reader complacency; no malice is intended. It is impossible for the publisher to distinguish fact from fiction for every phrase written. Therefore readers are advised that they are required to take NONE of the statements literally, as truth. The only truth is the meaning readers gather for themselves, based on their own history, conditions and intellect. The Society cannot be responsible for extracted meanings that diverge from intent, where the intent is the well-being of the Philippines.

• As stated in the section "Ownership of Comments", thoughts and opinions expressed by commenters are entirely those of the commenter. The Society has no way to discern which are intended with malice or which are satire, exaggeration and opinion, intended for the well-being of the Philippines. Complaints need to be taken up with the commenter directly.

• The Society gains no revenue from its publications. No advertisements are run. No articles are sold. No incentives are taken to express a certain viewpoint. No payments are made to contributors. The sole reason for being is to advocate for a healthy, wealthy and wise Philippines. The publisher has retired from employment and issues this blog soley for the personal satisfaction he gains by contributing to the well-being of the nation he has come to love. If words contained herein are deemed harmful in anyway, the Society is happy to share its revenue with complainants in whatever proportion complainants deem reasonable.