Template:Did you know nominations/Disini v. Secretary of Justice

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 21:16, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Disini v. Secretary of Justice

(

)

... ~~that a retweet is not cyberlibel?~~ Source: Acosta, Persida (2020-02-17). Liking a libelous post. The Manila Times; see also Disini v. Secretary of Justice (2014) (G.R. No. 203335) Text "Section 5 with respect to Section 4(c)(4) is unconstitutional. Its vagueness raises apprehension on the part of internet users because of its obvious chilling effect on the freedom of expression, especially since the crime of aiding or abetting ensnares all the actors in the cyberspace front in a fuzzy way."
- ALT1:~~... that in the Philippines, a retweet is not cyberlibel?~~ Source: Same as main hook.

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Tel Zeton
Comment: Some content by User:Sky Harbor from the original Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, which was split off into this article.

I know some people might object to the main hook, but it's just so snappy, I have to try. The law has universal jurisdiction, technically, anyone can be brought up on a cyberlibel charge, even if they don't live in the Philippines or are not Filipino. In my research, it has never happened that charges were filed against a foreigner who has never been to the Philippines, but there's no reason in law that this couldn't happen.

Created by Psiĥedelisto (talk). Self-nominated at 23:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC).

New enough, long enough, QPQ done. Article sourced, hook sourced. Passes earwig test. Approving Alt1. --evrik ^(talk) 14:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto:@Evrik: Hi, I saw this request for a review at WT:DYK. Just wanted to mention that the bolded link is a bit of an Easter egg; it could refer to anything. I think the hook should be rewritten. Yoninah (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

ALT2:~~... that as of 2014, neither a like nor a retweet is cyberlibel in the Philippines?~~ Source: Same as main hook.
ALT3:... that in the decision Disini v. Secretary of Justice, a retweet was made not cyberlibel? --evrik ^(talk) 15:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Evrik: this hook gives no indication of which country we're talking about. was made not is also not proper English. Yoninah (talk) 16:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Yoninah: How about this? ↑ Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 15:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto: It's a court case. You would write something like:
ALT4: ... that according to a 2014 Supreme Court of the Philippines decision, a retweet is not cyberlibel? Yoninah (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) OK Yoninah, but if we're going to make it so long, I ask that we put the "neither a like" also, so:

ALT5: ... that according to a 2014 Supreme Court of the Philippines decision, neither a like nor a retweet is cyberlibel? Is that OK with you? Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 15:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto: for United States Supreme Court cases, we pipe to "US Supreme Court". I wish we could do something similar here, like:
ALT5a: ... that according to a 2014 Philippine Supreme Court decision, neither a like nor a retweet is cyberlibel? Yoninah (talk) 16:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I think there are options here an will eave it to the promoter. --evrik ^(talk) 15:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

But evrik, ALT5/5a includes an additional fact (neither a like) that was not included in your original review. It needs to be approved. And there are too many options, some of them unacceptable. I started doing strikethroughs. Let's come up with one hook to make the promoter's job easier. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 16:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Approving 5a. The citation above covers both likes and retweets. --evrik ^(talk) 16:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Evrik: Thank you! Yoninah (talk) 16:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Back again to promote this. But looking over the article, the hook is leaving out the most important part—it's not talking about likes and retweets in general, but likes and retweets of libelous content. Yoninah (talk) 19:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

ALT6: ... that according to a 2014 Philippine Supreme Court decision, neither a like nor a retweet can be cyberlibel?
Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 19:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

But the article is not saying that. It's saying:
ALT7: ... that according to a 2014 Philippine Supreme Court decision, neither a like nor a retweet of potentially libelous content can be cyberlibel? Yoninah (talk) 19:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Yoninah: But it is saying that. No like or retweet can be cyberlibel, regardless of whether or not the liked/retweeted content is cyberlibel. Only if you add your own original libelous content is it cyberlibel. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 19:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I see. But the only place in the article where you mention likes and retweets is in the context of libelous posts, and the source you're using confirms that in the first paragraph: Liking or merely concurring with an alleged libelous posts will not make you liable for cyberlibel. Perhaps you need to write a bit more in the article to support your hook wording. Yoninah (talk) 19:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

A subset of all tweets are cyberlibel; but, no retweet or like of cyberlibel is ever itself cyberlibel; therefore ∴ no retweet or like can ever be cyberlibel. I don't see what there is to add. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 19:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Look, I would never think that an ordinary like or retweet is cyberlibel. The hook angle here is that even a like or retweet of cyberlibel is not cyberlibel. Please think of hook interest. Yoninah (talk) 19:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Yoninah: OK. How about this? Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 20:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

ALT8: ... that after a 2014 Philippine Supreme Court decision, liking or retweeting cyberlibel is no longer a crime?

Great. One question: why are you shortening the bolded link? Yoninah (talk) 20:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Yoninah: You wrote above for United States Supreme Court cases, we pipe to "US Supreme Court". I wish we could do something similar here. It didn't happen then, but I figured, "while I'm here again, why not". Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 21:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

OK, I'll leave it as is. Let's get this on the main page already. Yoninah (talk) 21:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)