20th May of 2014, the army announced the martial law. The next day, IP has been summoned to control the social media. On the 22nd May, there was a national coup.
NCPO (National Council Peace and Order)
coup announced that night. NCPO should stop any content.
asking ISP to monitor social media content.
media shouldn't interview academics, civil servants, people who work at courts and other independent body
media shouldn't put in public
academics, civil servants, people who work at courts and other independent body shouldn't give interview to media
if tv stations do not follow conditions provided by the coup, they will be shutdown
ministry of ICT regroup and placed under security branch NCPO - information war inside the country, example "this coup is necessary"
discussion of single gateway - control information to be passed in the country
[technological measure] ministry of ICT setting up working group to monitor social media and another one to setting up equipment but there are a lot of encryptions via HTPPS so it's hard to block websites unless they have to block the whole domain
cooperation with international gateway in thailand
All NCPO should be in effect even after the military gone
Very difficult to amend laws
Kyung Sin Park
Criminal threats against free speech in South Korea
Laws protecting right to personality - effect freedom of speech
Criminal code, Art 311 - insult
Criminal code, Art 307 (1) - truth defamation
Criminal code, Art 307 (2) - falsity defamation
Portrait right cases
all true evaluations risk insulting those being evaluated. Any evaluation lower than expected causes a sense of insult in the person being evaluated. But, entire civilisation is about evaluation, i.e, imputing values to things, people and places. How can the State ban people from insulting one another?
Only extremely offensive words? What is extreme?
chilling effects on even publicly-interest statements
narrow scope of public interest
pluralistic ideal of FOS
why should we be restricted in speaking truths even if uncomfortable to others?
"public interest" exception? who decides on the public interest? if public interest is defined collectivistically, what happens to the pluralistic ideal of FOS
is freedom to speak truths about others essential to development of one's personality? - whether internal or external
where is "my" personality? is it in me? is it what others think of me? So, if personality is subject to capricious thinking of Others, on what basis can the State put people in jail?
General Commitment 34 (2011)
Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations on South Korea (2015)
Abolish truth defamation
UN Special Rapporteur on Free Speech La Rue
Oldest democracy in Asia Pacific
Dark period in 1970's
In 25 years, massacred happened and most of them were journalists
Now, new president Duterte condemned for saying journalists should deserved to die
He made more outrageous statements as a mayor in the past
What's in store for freedom of expressions in Philippines?
Republic Act No 10175 (cybercrime prevention act 2012)
Republic Act No 9775 (anti-child pornography act 2009)
Republic Act No 10173 (data privacy act 2012)
Republic Act No 4200 (anti-wiretapping law)
Republic Act No 9372 (human security act 2007)
department of justice
office of cybercrime
national bureau of investigation
philippines national police
armed forces of the philippines
national intelligence coordinating agency
content types subject to censorship, filtering or surveillance
cyber-libel and other cybercrimes - censorship + surveillance
malicious disclosure of information
treason, espionage, provocking war and disloyalty in case of war, piracy, mutiny in the high seas, rebellion, sedition and kidnapping
instances of censorship and surveillance
"offensive" social media posts/content
example: Facebook takedowns after anti-Duartete posts, Facebook bans TV5 journalists for anti-Marcos posts