Difference between revisions of "Template:Did you know nominations/Disini v. Secretary of Justice"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Yoninah (restoring tick) |
imported>Yoninah (to Prep 2) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
− | {{ | + | <includeonly>{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|Talk|</includeonly>[[Category:Passed DYK nominations from June 2020]]<div style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> |
− | | | + | :''The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify this page.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as [[{{TALKPAGENAME}}|this nomination's talk page]], [[Talk:{{SUBPAGENAME}}|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 [[User:Yoninah|Yoninah]] ([[User talk:Yoninah|talk]]) 21:16, 25 June 2020 (UTC)<br /> |
{{DYK conditions}} | {{DYK conditions}} | ||
{{DYK header|Disini v. Secretary of Justice}} | {{DYK header|Disini v. Secretary of Justice}} | ||
{{DYK nompage links|nompage=Disini v. Secretary of Justice|Disini v. Secretary of Justice}} | {{DYK nompage links|nompage=Disini v. Secretary of Justice|Disini v. Secretary of Justice}} | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
* ... <s>that a [[reblogging|retweet]] '''[[Disini v. Secretary of Justice|is not]]''' [[Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012|cyberlibel]]?</s> <small>Source: Acosta, Persida (2020-02-17). [https://www.manilatimes.net/2020/02/17/legal-advice/dearpao/liking-a-libelous-post/686506/ Liking a libelous post]. ''The Manila Times''; see also ''Disini v. Secretary of Justice'' (2014) (G.R. No. 203335) [https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_203335_so_2014.html 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."</small> | * ... <s>that a [[reblogging|retweet]] '''[[Disini v. Secretary of Justice|is not]]''' [[Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012|cyberlibel]]?</s> <small>Source: Acosta, Persida (2020-02-17). [https://www.manilatimes.net/2020/02/17/legal-advice/dearpao/liking-a-libelous-post/686506/ Liking a libelous post]. ''The Manila Times''; see also ''Disini v. Secretary of Justice'' (2014) (G.R. No. 203335) [https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_203335_so_2014.html 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."</small> | ||
** '''ALT1''':<s>... that '''[[Disini v. Secretary of Justice|in the Philippines]]''', a [[reblogging|retweet]] is not [[Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012|cyberlibel]]? </s><small>Source: Same as main hook.</small> | ** '''ALT1''':<s>... that '''[[Disini v. Secretary of Justice|in the Philippines]]''', a [[reblogging|retweet]] is not [[Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012|cyberlibel]]? </s><small>Source: Same as main hook.</small> | ||
Line 16: | Line 13: | ||
::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. | ::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. | ||
<small>Created by [[User:Psiĥedelisto|Psiĥedelisto]] ([[User talk:Psiĥedelisto|talk]]). Self-nominated at 23:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC).</small> | <small>Created by [[User:Psiĥedelisto|Psiĥedelisto]] ([[User talk:Psiĥedelisto|talk]]). Self-nominated at 23:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC).</small> | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
:* [[File:Symbol confirmed.svg|16px]] New enough, long enough, QPQ done. Article sourced, hook sourced. Passes earwig test. Approving Alt1. --[[User:evrik|evrik]] <sup>([[User talk:evrik|talk]])</sup> 14:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC) | :* [[File:Symbol confirmed.svg|16px]] New enough, long enough, QPQ done. Article sourced, hook sourced. Passes earwig test. Approving Alt1. --[[User:evrik|evrik]] <sup>([[User talk:evrik|talk]])</sup> 14:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC) | ||
Line 50: | Line 44: | ||
:*Great. One question: why are you shortening the bolded link? [[User:Yoninah|Yoninah]] ([[User talk:Yoninah|talk]]) 20:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC) | :*Great. One question: why are you shortening the bolded link? [[User:Yoninah|Yoninah]] ([[User talk:Yoninah|talk]]) 20:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC) | ||
:::{{re|Yoninah}} You wrote above {{xt|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". [[User:Psiĥedelisto|Psiĥedelisto]] ([[User talk:Psiĥedelisto|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Psiĥedelisto|contribs]]) <sup>please ''always'' [[Help:Notifications|ping]]!</sup> 21:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC) | :::{{re|Yoninah}} You wrote above {{xt|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". [[User:Psiĥedelisto|Psiĥedelisto]] ([[User talk:Psiĥedelisto|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Psiĥedelisto|contribs]]) <sup>please ''always'' [[Help:Notifications|ping]]!</sup> 21:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC) | ||
− | ::::*[[File:Symbol confirmed.svg|16px]] OK, I'll leave it as is. Let's get this on the main page already. [[User:Yoninah|Yoninah]] ([[User talk:Yoninah|talk]]) 21:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC) | + | ::::*[[File:Symbol confirmed.svg|16px]] OK, I'll leave it as is. Let's get this on the main page already. [[User:Yoninah|Yoninah]] ([[User talk:Yoninah|talk]]) 21:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)</div><includeonly>|}}</includeonly><!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.--> |
− | }}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.--> |
Latest revision as of 21:16, 25 June 2020
- 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)
DYK toolbox |
---|
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.
- ALT1:
- 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)
- Template:PingTemplate:Ping 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)
- Template:Ping this hook gives no indication of which country we're talking about. Template:Tq is also not proper English. Yoninah (talk) 16:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
- Template:Ping How about this? ↑ Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 15:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
- Template:Ping 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 Template:U, 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)
- Template:Ping 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)
- (edit conflict) OK Template:U, but if we're going to make it so long, I ask that we put the "neither a like" also, so:
- ALT2:
- I think there are options here an will eave it to the promoter. --evrik (talk) 15:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
- But Template:U, ALT5/5a includes an additional fact (Template:Tq) 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)
- Template:Ping 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 Template:Tq. 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?Template:ParabrPsiĥedelisto (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)
- Template:Re 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: Template:Tq 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)
- Template:Re 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)
Template:Od Template:Ping 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)
- Template:Re 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)