Angry Emoticons on Social Media Post considered Cyberlibel?

Cyberlibel is a form of defamation committed through a computer system or similar means, as defined under Section 4(c)(4) of Republic Act No. 10175 (2012), also known as the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. It is essentially the crime of libel under Articles 353 and 355 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), but committed online, with penalties increased by one degree due to the use of information and communications technology (ICT).

WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS OF CYBERLIBEL?

Elements of Libel (Article 353, RPC):

1. A defamatory imputation;

2. Malicious intent;

3. Publication of the imputation;

4. Identification of the person defamed.

Qualifying Circumstance: The use of ICT in committing libel increases the penalty by one degree, as provided under Section 6 of Republic Act No. 10175 (2012).

The question of whether angry emoticons on social media can constitute cyberlibel depends on the context in which they are used, the intent behind their use, and whether they meet the elements of libel under the law.

To determine if angry emoticons can be considered cyberlibel, the following elements must be analyzed:

1. Imputation of a Discreditable Act or Condition:

   • The act must involve imputing a crime, vice, defect, or any act that causes dishonor or discredit to another person.

   • Angry emoticons alone (e.g., "😡") do not inherently impute a discreditable act. However, if they are used in conjunction with defamatory statements or in a context that implies malice, they may contribute to the libelous nature of the post.

     
     

2. Publication:

   • The defamatory statement must be made public. On social media, this is satisfied when the post is visible to others, such as in public comments or posts.

     
     

3. Identification of the Person Defamed:

   • The person being defamed must be identifiable, either directly or indirectly. If the angry emoticons are part of a post or comment targeting a specific individual, this element may be satisfied.

     
     

4. Malice:

   • Malice is presumed in defamatory statements unless the statement falls under privileged communication. The use of angry emoticons alone may not establish malice, but their context and association with other statements could indicate malicious intent.

In Disini, Jr., et.al. v. The Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 203335 (2014), the Supreme Court clarified that Cyberlibel is not a new crime but an extension of traditional libel to online platforms. The Court emphasized that only the author of the defamatory statement is liable for Cyberlibel, and actions such as "liking," "commenting," or "sharing" do not automatically constitute aiding or abetting Cyberlibel.

The Court also noted that the unique culture of internet media, characterized by quick and casual interactions, must be considered when determining liability. The Court further noted that the complexity of interactions in cyberspace, including the use of reactions like emoticons, does not automatically translate to criminal liability unless they create an altogether new defamatory statement.

So, is the mere placing of an ANGRY EMOTICON on a social media post considered as Cyberlibel?

An angry emoticon, when used alone and without any accompanying defamatory text or context, does not satisfy the elements of libel. It lacks a specific defamatory imputation and the requisite malice.

When an angry emoticon is used alongside a defamatory post or comment, it may be construed as an endorsement or intensification of the defamatory statement. However, as emphasized in Disini, Jr., et al. v. The Secretary of Justice, et al., G.R. No. 203335 (2014), such actions, including reactions like "Liking," "Commenting," or "Sharing" defamatory content, are generally not deemed as aiding or abetting Cyberlibel.

Disclaimer: The information provided in this article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. While we strive to provide accurate and up-to-date information, this article may not reflect the most current legal developments or interpretations. Readers are encouraged to consult with a legal counsel for advice regarding their specific legal issues or concerns. The authors and publishers of this article disclaim any liability for actions taken or not taken based on the content of this article.