LOVE TRIANGLE

Before I begin writing this Post, I'll like to say something: I actually hope two people never get to read this piece. Firstly, My Best Friend; Secondly, My Crush, who My Best-Friend happens to be interested in. On a second thought, I also hope My Wife and maybe My Children never get to read this too. because it might cause a lot of controversies in the future, especially if I can't write special piece for my wife. And Maybe My aunty, siblings, pastor and some of my co-workers never get to read this. Else this is surely gonna change their view of me.
Back to business. Over the years, I've had interest in a couple of girls, I just wanted to be more than friends with them, but with time, most of the feelings get washed away, while some of them persist, and manage to stay subdued over time.
But then, My best-friend happens to be a "ladies favorite". He meets a girl for the first time, and she falls head over heels for him. While I'm a sharp contrast to that, I'm more likely to be disliked by a lady whose just meeting me, (actually, most of the female friends I have, I meet under circumstances where we just had to get along with one another.)
One thing I'm happy about is that My friend (Let's call him "T" for the purpose of this discussion, except you read my previous piece on Him) doesn't "Over Use" this to his advantage. He respects these girls, treats them right, and tries to be best of friends with as many of them as possible.
Just like every other guy out there, T also has feelings for a number of this girls, Two of them actually, until recently when He meet a third one, who He has been crazy about (Which is very uncharacteristic of Him.)
I'll tell you more about the other girls, and His own dilemma in dealing with them some other times, but today, I'm gonna talk about only one of them. (Let's call her "F" just for the purpose of this discussion, except if you know the three of us personally, in which case I'll most probably be in big trouble).
I'll start right from the genesis of this whole palaver (i actually didn't know palaver is a correct English word until I checked my dictionary, I thought it was pidgin).
I started senior secondary school about a month later than most of my peers, then I was posted to a wrong class for over half of the academic session. When eventually I was transferred to the right class, I noticed a couple of things about this class (I'll write about it sometimes in the future.) and It was actually impossible not to notice this young, confident and vibrant young boy. I was actually sat right behind him, and we became friends. I also noticed this girl who always had a beret on, (Which was kinda uncommon in our class back then). She was beautiful, and had this lovely smile which was infectious.
The boy was "T" while the girl was"F". Before the end of our first year of school, there were lots of hook-ups in our class, as we had begun to notice the characters of each other, and get to know each other better.
"T" and "F" were mutually attracted to one another, but didn't exactly go into an official relationship, although they were as good as being a couple. They were even closer and more cute than most known couple in the class back then. But then, instead of openly showing affection for one another, they'll engage in public argument, and consistently take opposing sides on almost every discussion, but the chemistry between them was very visible to everyone.
After we finished secondary school, I, "T" and "F" got closer than before, and they still didn't have any official relationship, although they both admitted to having feelings for one another.
As I and "F" got closer, I began to have feelings for her, as I began noticing more positive sides of her, and I'll admit, she got even more beautiful (I don't know how that's even possible, because she was already too beautiful before.)
I believed if I leave this feeling unattended to, it will die a natural death, but each time we talked, chat, or I saw her pictures, I loved her even more. If she was somebody else, I will probably have told her about my feelings for her, but she is suppose to be in a relationship with my Best friend "T".
I believe asking her out will amount to betraying the confidence and trust of My Best-Friend, although they never dated, and I don't see that happening soon, but then even if I date get to date her, I have this premonition, that she'll always compare me to "T" which might prove disastrous for our relationship, and cause constant conflict between "T" and I, which is something I'll rather avoid.
If I was to advice someone else who was in this same predicament, it may be easy doing that, but right now, I've decided to keep shunning my feelings, and remain best of friends with both "T" and "F". And this has also made me have a change of heart in the way I give people relationship advice.

Cyber Rights: Defending Free speech in the Digital Age is a non-fiction book about cyberlaw, written by free speech lawyer Mike Godwin. It was first published in 1998 by Times Books.[1] It was republished in 2003 as a revised edition by The MIT Press.[2] Godwin graduated from the University of Texas School of Law in 1990 and was the first staff counsel for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Written with a first-person perspective, Cyber Rights gives the reader a background in legal issues and history pertaining to free speech on the Internet. It documents the author's experiences in defending free speech online, and puts forth the thesis that "the remedy for the abuse of free speech is more speech".[3] Godwin emphasizes that decisions made about the expression of ideas on the Internet have an impact on freedom of speech in other mediums of communication as well, as granted by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The book was received favorably by Library Journal, where it was "Recommended for anyone concerned about expression on the Internet and democratic society."[4] Booklist recommended Cyber Rights, for both circulating and professional collections",[3] and School Library Journal recommended it for young readers.[5] Salon called the book "an instructional book with an argument to convey – a sort of cross between a dry, textbookish primer and a lively personal history."[6] The Green Bag commented that the book was "preaching to the choir", and that legal implications of speech on the Internet "must be taken seriously".[7] Publishers Weekly noted Godwin's "unusually broad view of free speech", and criticized the author for viewing issues "filtered through rose-colored screens".[8] Law Library Journal criticized the book for being repetitive, and wrote positively of it for being "a good introduction to the world of cyberspace and the legal issues that affect the Internet."[9] Law Library Journal recommended Cyber Rights for "large academic law libraries".[9] The Philadelphia Inquirer highlighted Cyber Rights among "1998's Best Reading".[10]

CYBER CRIME LAW

The Information Technology and E-commerce Council is in 2004 preparing a new Cybercrime Bill. The existing Sec 33. Penalties is no longer sufficient.
PHILIPPINES REPUBLIC ACT NO.8792
AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE RECOGNITION AND USE OF ELECTRONIC COMMERCIAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS, PENALTIES FOR UNLAWFUL USE THEREOF, AND OTHER PURPOSES

- The folowing Acts shall be penalized by fine and/or imprisonment, as follows:
Hacking or cracking which refers to unauthorized access into or interference in a computer system/server or information and communication system; or any access in order to corrupt, alter, steal or destroy using a computer or other similar information and communication devices, without the knowledge and consent of the owner of the computer or information and communications system, including the introduction of computer viruses and the like, resulting in the corruption, destruction, alteration, theft or loss of electronic data messages or electronic document shall be punished by a minimum fine of one hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) and a maximum commensurate to the damage incurred and a mandatory imprisonment of six (6) months to three (3) years.

(SPOT.ph) Cyberspace has become the platform of the best and worst things that people can come up with when they're online. While it's a hotbed of game-changing ideas and artistic expression, it has also turned into a breeding ground for trolls and cyberthugs. That being said, well-meaning Pinoy lawmakers thought it best to pass Republic Act No. 10175 or The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. But, wait! There's a catch. This very same law that professes to protect us from those who would do us wrong via digital means also threatens to take away our freedom to say what we want.

Senator Tito Sotto proudly owned up to the fact that he was responsible for inserting the libel clause into the law. Senator Chiz Escudero called the insertion a "mistake" and has said that he'll move to have the law repealed. Meanwhile, Senator TG Guingona (along with the other senators who didn't back the law) continues to be against the law. For its part, Malacañang said President Noynoy Aquino thoroughly reviewed the law before he affixed his signature to it—a fact which strikes some people as strange. There are those who have remarked that if P-Noy's father, Ninoy, was still around, he probably be among those protesting what has come to be called as "cyber martial law."

For the record, the following senators voted to pass the law:
Sen. Tito Sotto
Sen. Bong Revilla
Sen. Manny Villar
Sen. Lito Lapid
Sen. Koko Pimentel
Sen. Jinggoy Estrada
Sen. Loren Legarda
Sen. Chiz Escudero
Sen. Ping Lacson
Sen. Gringo Honasan
Sen. Pia Cayetano
Sen. Bongbong Marcos
Sen. Ralph Recto

Sure, the law does have some good points, but its "nasty parts" can't be ignored. With the help of InterAksyon.com's series of articles about the Cybercrime Prevention Act—as well as news clips from GMA-7, ABS-CBN, and ANC—we have listed 10 of the law's scariest parts:

1. It only wants to hear nice things . If you're a law-abiding citizen who happens to use blogs, Facebook, and Twitter to let the world know about your beef against, say, certain elected officials who are far from being geniuses—then you've been living a lie. Under the Cybercrime Prevention Act, you're just like any other cybercriminal. Your tweet about the barangay captain who loves San Miguel more than his job? That could be classified as libel, which is defined in the Revised Penal Code as "the public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person..." Take note of the part where it says "real or imaginary." You're damned if you're lying and you're damned if you're telling the truth.


2. It champions the dead by asking the living to shut up. Under the Cybercrime Prevention Act, you would also be committing a crime if you "blacken the memory of one who is dead." So, what happens if the person who died was a criminal who molested kids, backed a law that resulted in thousands of people being tortured, or killed journalists—and you're documenting his or her evil deeds for a history book? Out of being nice, do you erase the "bad parts" of his or her life? The law says, if you can't say anything good, then you better not say anything at all. That's great for petty issues but not when we're talking about people who use their position to take advantage of defenseless individuals.
  'likes', shares could be grounds for libel, says Sen. Guingona


3. It's so "special" that it hurts. In an InterAksyon.com article, News5 resource person Atty. Mel Sta. Maria—who teachers at the Ateneo de Manila University School of Law—pointed out that the Cybercrime Prevention Act is tagged as a mala prohibita law.  Sta. Maria explained: "It is an accepted legal rule that offenses under special laws are considered mala prohibita as distinguished from mala in se. [For mala in se], there must be a criminal mind to be convicted. In murder, theft, robbery and other offenses punished by our Revised Penal Code, for example, intention to do wrong is an essential element. [For mala prohibita], there need not be a criminal mind. The mere perpetuation of the prohibited act is enough." So, even if you're kidding around by using somebody's name as a verb or noun to signify not-too-admirable acts (Noynoying, Sottomy, etc), you could get arrested.


4. It's a time traveler. In an InterAksyon.com article written by Patrick Villavicencio, University of the Philippines College of Law Professor Atty. JJ Disini said that under the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 the so-called "victims" and their lawyers "could argue in court that old libelous posts [that are] still live today can be charged with online libel." The report further quoted Disini, who explained, "Kasi pwede nilang sabihin na (Because it could mean) by keeping it there today, you’re still publishing it now. So if you’re still publishing it after the law took effect, then you’re liable for its publication today." So, that scathing post about your ex that you put up way back in 2004? You could end up going to jail for that. It's an I Know What You Posted Several Summers Ago scenario.

5. It's outdated. An InterAksyon.com article, citing Human Rights Watch (HRW) Asia, noted: "The Philippines' libel law, enacted during the American colonial period and intended mainly to stifle dissent, continues to consider the offense a criminal act. Media organizations contend the law on libel has most often been used by people in power to harass journalists and muzzle critical reportage."


Related Articles
Sen. Chiz Escudero says he'll move to repeal "libel provision" of Cybercrime Prevention Act
Netizens alarmed by cybercrime law, which may lead to "warrantless takedowns" of sites criticizing politicians

Mar Roxas confirmed as DILG chief; Sen. Miriam Santiago allegedly persuaded by Sen. Tito Sotto to withdraw "block attempt"
Sharon Cuneta defends Sen. Tito Sotto, says his use of Robert Kennedy's words didn't need to be explained



MANILA, Philippines - Sharing content, or even just clicking the 'Like' button on Facebook, may be grounds for libel under the recently enacted Cybercrime Prevention Act. But Senator Teofisto Guingona III said Thursday the law is so broad and vague it isn't clear who can or should be sued.

“The law is very broad,” Guingona, who opposes the new law, said. “If you click like, you can be sued, and if you share, and continuously re-share information, you can also be sued. Saka sino ang liable? Hindi klaro eh. ‘Yung original na nag-post? ‘Yung nag-share? ‘Yung nag-tweet? Kahit nga ikaw, mag-post ka ng simpleng ‘hehehe’ di ba? Ibig sabihin nu’n, sangayon ka (And who is liable? It isn’t clear. The one who made the original post? The ones who share? The ones who tweet. Even you, if you post a simple, ‘hehehe,’ right? Does that mean you agree)? Are you liable? So, napakalawak eh.”

Guingona also described the law as “unrealistic” and difficult to enforce.

But the bottom-line, he said, “on its face, it is unconstitutional,” which is why he filed before the Supreme Court on Thursday a petition asking it to declare void “questionable” provisions of the Cybercrime Prevention Act that infringe on freedom of speech and of expression, among these the inclusion of libel among punishable crimes.

Guingona acknowledged that the country needs an anti-cybercrime law but said the one enacted could easily be used to suppress people’s rights.

“Without a clear definition of the crime of libel and the persons liable, virtually any person can now be charged with a crime even if you just like, re-tweet or comment on an online update or blog post containing criticisms,” he said.

He also said the harsher penalty for “cyber-libel” -- up to 12 years’ imprisonment compared to the four years and two months for libel committed in print -- would demonize technology.

Aside from this, Guingona said the new law violated the constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy by making it possible for a person to be sued both under the Cybercrime Prevention Act and the Revised Penal Code.

Guingona said he is confident the Supreme Court will rule in his favor even as he urged netizens to join the protest against the Cybercrime Prevention Act.

Even if the high court rules for his petition, Guingona said he would still seek a review of the law. ~

COMMENTS AND GRATITUDE: then they are fool to do that,even the most hightech and well modern ahead nation didn't dare to endorse that kinda of law how about us thart we are only late and imatators to other country,,,....they can no longer spy us whatever moves we want to do so....they dont make any mistakes moves just to make people powers rise up and make more than what they did cause they are nothing with out humanity....they are not in their position with out people's unity.....they are fucking damn hell FATTY CHROCCODILES IN THE GOVERNMENT ......

Soppost to be but they are stunks,lol, they dont think.they dont even look forward after all the calamities and typhoons that even the nation cant stand on.The welfare and foods,beneficiary,medication and shelter.Poverty and economy.....whre are their intellect,,,are their head ruin also by the earthquake and typhoons that hits philippines?

 HOW about we,people working abroad...how can we make sure that the money we sent are safe and dear family can use it...how can we talk often and make enjoyment....thats the only way for us to make bonding and do cares each other...they are making people bad...they are making steps that people can think negatively and if people does wrong they well sent jail of what laws they did...they are fucking ignorance and no sense of humor....they are like dectator and we are no longer democratic country,,,,the systematic of phillippines no longer good and its really corrupted.....they until on words with out action.

This coming 11pm,all facebook account will be CUT.This is according from the creator of facebook.All the activities that wasbeing done this time will be delay, SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. To save you're facebook accounts, please forward this message to 25 FB users for us to make sure that you are active user of FB. If can't pass this to 25 users you're account will be cut without any hesitancy. (( Chat Conversation End)

                                                                                                                                                  JAKE A.J
                                                                                                                           BLOGGER

GARZON,ARGIE D.: Cybercrime Prevention Law

GARZON,ARGIE D.: Cybercrime Prevention Law: Petition Letter Greetings, We, the youth, journalists, activists, bloggers, and netizens of the Philippines express our outright ...

Cybercrime Prevention Law

Petition Letter

Greetings,

We, the youth, journalists, activists, bloggers, and netizens of the Philippines express our outright condemnation to the passage of Republic Act No. 10175, or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, which poses serious threats to Internet freedom, the right to privacy and other essential civil liberties including the freedom of speech, expression, and the press.

While the Cybercrime Law was supposedly enacted to ward off hacking, identity theft, data manipulation, cybersex and other nefarious activities in the Internet, the insertion of provisions regarding online libel and vague sections on data collection and sanctions have transformed the legislation into an online censorship law.

We express our highest condemnation to the Bicameral Conference, especially to Sen. Vicente Sotto III, for inserting the online libel provisions, which are not present even in the 2001 Budapest Convention on Cybercrime penned by the Council of Europe, which was the basis for RA 10175.

The decriminalization of libel has been a longstanding legal battle in the Philippines, and the inclusion of online libel is a grave backward step. For years, various individuals have abused libel, a criminal offense in the country, to harass journalists, whistleblowers, and ordinary citizens. With the inclusion of online libel, we fear that all information we exchange in the Internet, even own personal communications, might be sanctioned and become grounds for criminal offenses.

We also fear the enactment of Section 19 of RA 10175, which effectively makes the Department of Justice an all-encompassing “Internet superpower.” Section 19 of RA 10175 states, “When a computer data is prima facie found to be in violation of the provisions of this Act, the DOJ shall issue an order to restrict or block access to such computer data.” Under such provision, the DOJ can take down websites that it suspects – upon initial observation – to be violating RA 10175.

The Cybercrime Prevention Law is, in fact, far worse than the “Stop Online Piracy Act” and the “Protect IP Act,” that were pushed in the US Congress earlier this year but failed to prosper. RA 10175 will have a “chilling impact” to bloggers, online journalists, advocacy groups and normal netizens, as any website can be shut down with accusations of infringement without due process.

It is also alarming that the new law was seemingly drafted with the mindset that crimes committed online is graver than those committed in the real world. Due to the vague provisions in RA 10175, even commenters and those that retweet libellous materials can also be incriminated.

As several provisions in this law are clearly unconstitutional, we strongly urge the government to junk this legislation and prevent the enactment of e-Martial Law. The passage of this law seemingly reflects the Aquino administration’s policy of neglect. This must be stopped, by all means.

With the government taking Internet freedom away, the Filipino people will not just stand and watch. Internet freedom is a human right, and we will defend it both in the virtual and the real world.

Junk the Cybercrime Prevention Law!

For Internet freedom, :(

A male prostitute, a mangy cat, a murder and a maniacal mix-up that threatens his career, his impending marriage and his life. Nothing is going as planned for Austin Glass.
 Austin — seems to have it all. At least on the surface. A loving fiancee.
 A future with the FBI and a healthy sized trust fund. He also has a grin and a wisecrack for every situation. But the smile he presents to everyone hides a painful past he’s buried too deeply to remember.
 And his quips mask bitterness and insecurity.
 Austin has himself and most of the whole world fooled.
 Until he meets someone who immediately sees him better than he sees himself.
As events unfold and Austin’s world unravels, he finds himself pushed into making quick life-changing decisions.
 But can he trust Peter or what’s happening between them when each meeting seems to be just a series of volatile reactions? Word Count: approx. 122,787 (less)