Internet Censorship in the Philippines

Recently, a news item has been released saying that Netopia, an Internet cafe chain in the Philippines, has proposed for the creation of a censorship body which will operate similarly to the Movies Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB).

According also to the same news item, Netopia has presented several recommendations to Senators Ramon Revilla Jr. and Manuel Villar for the creation of regulations against online pornography.

Perhaps, Netopia and Senators Revilla and Villar should remember that the Philippine Constitution of 1987, Section 3(1) of the Bill of Rights, states that "The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law."

Further, Section 4 states that "No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for redress of grievances."

While it is understood that the objective of Netopia (or the proposed censorship body) is to protect minors from materials intended for adults, such censorship would, in my opinion be unconstitutional. It is virtually impossible to do so because Internet servers are scattered all over the world. Further, should there be a law to censor the Internet, the Philippines will then become another China that censors the Internet.

Furthermore, it is the responsibility of parents to watch over the Internet access of their children, and as such, creating a body to censor the Internet for the interest of minors would violate the right of adults to access adult-related materials.

However, it is possible to restrict the access of minors to materials which may be harmful to them in the Internet. NetNanny and CyberPatrol are two of the many applications for this purpose. Microsoft also has published an article in order to protect children.

The same may also be used by Netopia to protect minors who access their computers.

On the other hand, the United States Supreme Court has already ruled that the Communications Decency Act, which prohibits communication "by computer in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, to any person the communicator believes has not attained the age of 18 years, any material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs," violates the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

While the Constitutions of both countries are independent of each other, both, the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, however, specifically states that "no law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech," and that "congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech," respectively.