Libel and the benefit of the ‘daw’

Much has been said about what should not be said in public considering that once said they can no longer be unsaid.

This is the reason why libel or slander remains unprotected. Its pernicious effect on one’s reputation is so great no amount of publicity stunt or gimmick can easily repair it.

Under the law, libel refers to written defamation while slander is oral. Their common element is defamation, whose layman’s definition of late has so ridiculously expanded that it now embraces anything that offends like calling someone fat or overweight.

However, for purposes of libel, defamation only pertains to those that actually damage one’s reputation or impute a crime, vice or defect, real or imaginary.

Accusing someone of committing theft or plunder for example comes to mind. Calling him fat doesn’t because most of the time people say that because well, he’s just obese.

Incidentally, mere opinions and general statements are not considered defamatory. So, when you say a politician is corrupt, that is not libelous, unless you point to some specific offense he actually did.

Same with cursing. “P*t*ng I*a,” says the Supreme Court, is just an expression of anger as a general rule and should not be taken seriously as your mother is not usually a whore. Or so it seems.

Anyway, libel is not about a person getting offended but about how people’s perception of him is twisted as they read the denigratory post. Hence, he cannot file a case just because he’s overly sensitive.

What it all boils down to is really malice. When one says something vicious, the presumption is it’s malicious. So, the burden is on him to prove it’s not.

This is why jokes are not considered libelous. When one makes fun of someone, the idea is really just that — to make fun of him. If it hits close to home, like this one joke that says Sen. Revilla is the “man of steals,” that remains protected given the context.

When Mar Roxas lost his last senatorial bid, I remember suggesting that maybe he can write a self-help book about how to handle defeat and a wife like Korina. A friend who read the joke quickly pointed out it’s probably libelous.

But this is the same guy who said that Harry Roque is half-Filipino because well, he’s half-Filipina. Which of course, is not true because the ratio is actually 3 to 1.

By the way, truth can be a defense in libel. But only when published in good faith. If it’s malicious, it’s slanderous still. Incidentally, if the subject of attack are public officials, the standard, says the Court, is different because they should not be onion-skinned. Public office is public trust. Long before there was social media, libel had been the concern of media practitioners as gatekeepers.

Facebook and Twitter have, however, changed that landscape. Now everyone is a potential verbal predator that can destroy anyone that crosses his path.

In cyber libel, though, only the original poster is liable. Not the person who shares the post or makes a comment unless said comment raises a new defamatory issue.

Parenthetically, comments in group chats are considered publication. So, one should be careful making any disparaging remarks against anyone in any GC or viber groups.

As there has been a public clamor for decriminalizing libel, we should all remember that we live in a democracy and free speech is its very embodiment. This is why I admire people who speak freely, like some senators who say anything they want to.

But I suspect it’s not because they stand up for free speech. It’s just that they are not prevented by this thing called thought!