Practice question
A blogger knowingly invents a bribery transaction and publishes it as a factual accusation against an identified public official. At trial the prosecution proves publication, defamatory imputation, identity, knowing falsity and all other applicable elements; no privilege or defense applies. The blogger claims that public affairs and internet publication categorically exclude libel liability. Which is correct under Disini?
- The claim succeeds because every online statement is absolutely immune.
- The claim succeeds because knowing falsity is required to protect debate.
- No public official may ever be defamed as a matter of law.
- The claim succeeds whenever a post is called commentary.
- The categorical immunity claim fails; protected debate does not automatically immunize proven libel meeting the heightened malice requirement.
Legal references
- Disini v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 203335 et al., February 11, 2014, main decision, commercial speech and libel: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_203335_2014.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.