Practice question
An original author uploads a defamatory post. A reader merely receives it and clicks a reaction without composing or publishing any original defamatory statement. The sole charge against the reader invokes section 5 as aiding cyberlibel through that reaction. What does Disini require?
- The printed section 5 text automatically makes every reaction criminal
- The reader must be treated as the original author
- The section 5 application to online libel cannot sustain the charge because Disini declared it unconstitutional in that respect
- Every internet reaction is immune from every possible law regardless of its actual content
- The original author is also categorically outside the cyberlibel provision
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2012/ra_10175_2012.html — RA 10175, Chapter II, sections 4–7; read subject to Disini and subsequent controlling decisions.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_203335_2014.html — Disini, Jr. v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 203335, main decision, operative declaration on sections 4(c)(3), 4(c)(4), 5 and 7.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_203335_2014.html — Disini, G.R. No. 203335, April 22, 2014 main reconsideration resolution affirming the decision.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2026/apr2026/gr_258524_2026.html — Causing v. People, G.R. No. 258524, April 8, 2026 main reconsideration resolution, one-year cyberlibel prescription from discovery and need for evidence.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.