 |
| Photo from Hungeree.com |
Crime does not pay. No one is above the
law.
Looking back at how these adages came
into our society's consciousness, we are reminded of a time when
nations were still kingdoms ruled by archetypal monarchs for decades,
even centuries. It is this point in history when people questioned
their existence as whether solely for life-long servitude or pursuit
of personal well-being. It was in this period when people found the
answer to their questions: that kings and queens weren't as divine as
they thought they are and that the ordinary human can lead a group of people
as much as these elites can. Hence, concepts such as human rights and
social contract came into being and gave birth to democratic nations
we now know today, including our own country.
Rights and the Social Contract
By breaking the shackles of despotism
and committing themselves into taking the reins of national
leadership, the people of the first democratic nations agreed to
establish a covenant. This so-called social contract basically
defines what rights free people have as both human beings and
citizens and their determination to uphold and protect such rights
through their agent – The State. It also stipulates that by letting
The State enforce and preserve these rights, citizens will have to
surrender some of the same rights in order to achieve such mission
and bring forth what is commonly good for all. Hence, by agreeing
that crime should not pay and that no one is above the law, in the
event that one man breaks the social contract, that man must
surrender some of his rights (i.e. the right to free movement) as a
consequence of his actions. The same is true when a person, in
committing to uphold anyone's honor and reputation, must limit
his/her freedom of speech once such speech degrades anyone's
well-being.
Rights in the Digital Divide
 |
| Photo from Sigmuc.com |
Granted the freedom to pursue their
well-being and improve their way of life, human beings have made huge
strides politically, economically, and technologically. The world
became smaller as they developed newer and faster means to communicate
and exchange ideas or goods, the testament of which is the evolution
from snail mail to social media. Each of these media celebrated
freedom of speech in its own way, with social media being the most
celebrated by our generation among all these means. Thus, any person
within a point in a map, can now speak their minds seamlessly with
just a flicker of the keyboard.
However, the celebration of freedom of
speech in social media also has its consequences. Just as its
predecessors, print and broadcast media, social media has become a
platform for attacks against a person's honor and reputation as well
as a means to circumvent all other rights in the book. Concepts such
as piracy, online pornography, online libel, and cyberbullying were
coined to describe such violations. The Internet does seem to put
crime above the law with its seemingly free and somewhat anarchic
atmosphere.
Where Do We Draw the Line?
With the evolution of crime in the
today's Information Age, policing the Internet is seen as a viable
option to uphold human rights and protect citizens from themselves
and others in accordance to the social contract. But is the Digitial
Divide within the scope of our social contracts? Where do we draw the
line between freedom in the Internet and protecting human rights?
Governments around the world have come
up with different approaches to policing the Web. The United States
tried enacting its SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) and PIPA (Protect
Intellectual Property Act) only to draw tremendous flak from Internet
companies and users alike. The Philippines, for its part, succeeded
in enacting and signing into law the Cybercrime Prevention Act of
2012 (Republic Act No. 10175), which is aimed at curbing a multitude
of criminal acts on the Internet and other platforms of
communication. Just like SOPA and PIPA, it was met with massive
protests never before seen in the country, which included hacking of
government websites by anonymous digital revolutionaries. The law and
the subsequent reaction to its passage has received both favorable
and negative comments about it both from the masses and the
intelligentsia both local and abroad.
A Tightrope to the Right Direction
There should be no doubt about it: we
need the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 more than ever. It is
perhaps the most crucial step we've made as a nation in response to
rampant criminal acts on the Web. Nevertheless, while the ends of the
law is justified, the means to achieve these ends should be in
accordance to our social contract. Its enforcement should favor both parties, not the State or the citizens solely. By agreeing to uphold and
protect their rights and well-being on the Internet, citizens must
allow some of their rights, such as the right to free speech, to be
limited either by the State or by themselves. The State, by upholding and protecting the rights of everyone on the Internet should not
curtail or completely abolish our rights to free speech,
expression, and privacy, and should be open to scrutiny regarding their actions.
The State should not be antagonized for
enacting this law, nor should citizens be antagonized for their
outright disagreement. Rather, both stakeholders must sit down once
more and review the social contracts they have established and agreed
to and come to a balanced resolution to the issue of cybercrime.
Working hand in hand in achieving our goals for a better, happier,
and humane society is the key. While online protests are essential in
drawing attention to the need for reevaluation, protests that result
in the usurpation of other people's rights and delay in State
services is a defeatist cause.
Yes, people should not be afraid of governments. After all, we are the government. Hence, we should all be afraid of ourselves and the crimes we could possibly commit on the Net. You may not agree with what I say, but
I will defend your right to disagree to it. In the end, I say, our
freedom to do what we want should never justify wrong as right. TSS
