Philippine Cybercrime Law Put On Indefinite Hold 70
An anonymous reader writes "The Supreme Court of the Philippines has put an indefinite hold on a controversial law that would, among other things, ban cybersex and porn. A host of groups, particularly journalists, had resoundingly criticized the law, the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, as broad and out of touch with how the Internet works. The Philippines' National Union of Journalists, for example, called its definition of libel 'a threat not only against the media and other communicators but anyone in the general public who has access to a computer and the Internet.'"
Re:I can't join the free speech religion. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I can't join the free speech religion. (Score:2, Insightful)
(_i_)
That's ASCII art of a woman bending over.
Shut down Slashdot immediately.
Re:I can't join the free speech religion. (Score:2, Insightful)
You're a fucking idiot.
The courts (assuming you're talking about America) have repeatedly upheld porn as protected speech.
The test for free speech isn't a better way of life, but it's intended to prevent assholes like you from telling other people what they can and can't do.
Fuck the sacred, fuck your god, fuck Allah, fuck Buddha, fuck Jesus, fuck Mohammed, fuck Cthulu, fuck the Flying Spaghetti Monster, fuck all of them if it means douchebags like you think you get to control what other people do.
Go beat your wife or rape your kids or whatever you idiots do.
Re:I can't join the free speech religion. (Score:4, Insightful)
Nothing particularly requires that 'performance art' only include things that are legal and/or unobjectionable. However, punishing people for doing things that are illegal for other reasons during the course of producing 'art' is not generally considered to be a restriction on freedom of speech, any more than the illegality of sacrificing babies to satan is considered an infringement on religious freedom...
There are some edge cases that get tricky(mostly on the side of people totally incidentally banning things that are required for speech or religions they don't like); but it isn't a terribly difficult conceptual distinction. Banning a speech act as such is a clear infringement of speech rights; but that doesn't confer any immunity from any other relevant laws on the speaker, should their speech involve breaching them.