Those who have made a habit of showing off to friends in social media like facebook, IG, and twitter where they are at the moment will then have to think about a law that may get an act of “selfie” a court case or a jail sentence.
That is, if the anti-selfie bill or House Bill No. 4807 is passed and encated into law. That bill is titled “An Act protecting against personal intrusion by any person with intent to gain or profit therefrom”, taking a “selfie” will not be an innocent and spontaneous gesture anymore.
The so-called “anti-selfie” bill hasn’t received many Likes among congressmen, with both majority and minority members disliking its potential to curtail self-expression and press freedom.
APPROVED ON SECOND READING
Principally authored by administration Rep. Rufus Rodriguez of the 2nd District of Cagayan de Oro, HB No.4807 was approved on second reading in the House of Representative last August 12 and has since gained mainstream attention as the anti-selfie bill.
“We have to carefully study this proposal since some of the grounds constituting the violations are vague and too broad and may constitute prior restraint and may pose further Constitutional problems,” AKO BICOL party-list Rep. Rodel Batocabe said in reaction to HB No. 4807.
But Batocabe, a lawyer and fellow administration ally, said the measure would be more appropriately dubbed as the “anti-paparazzi bill” due to its supposed safeguard on privacy and against the gaining of profit.
INNOCENT UPLOAD
Another member of the House majority, Ifugao Rep. Teddy Brawner Baguilat Jr., lamented that the anti-selfie bill could land unsuspecting mobile phone users in jail with an innocent upload to Facebook or Instagram.
“Just reading the provisions, being a zealous fan and recording a celebrity’s activities could land one in jail. I think regulation in social media is needed but this has to be studied cautiously and thoroughly to make sure that no basic liberties are compromised,” he said.
‘SELFIE’
The “selfie” is a social media-spawned activity where one takes his or her photo, oftentimes with the specific intention to show the background or other elements within the frame.
“I think we need more definitions and qualifications. [Provisions] could be broad but the discussions will clarify things,” said Baguilat who is the chair of the Agrarian Reforms panel.
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
Meanwhile, members of the House minority had far harsher things to say about HB No. 4807, which they described as a violation to freedom of expression.
“It’s a clear violation of freedom of expression. The law on “selfie” has no place in a civilized and democratic society,” reckoned 1-BAP party-list Rep. Silvestre Bello III, who is a former solicitor general and Justice secretary.
“Cong. Rufus might as well kiss his national political ambitions goodbye if he insists on this anti-selfie bill. He should have hired good lawyers to vet the constitutionality of his bill,” said Rep. Terry Ridon, a member of the Makabayan bloc that is part of the minority.
Ridon represents the youth sector, undoubtedly the most active with selfies, through his Kabataan party-list.
Other Makabayan bloc solons – Reps. Neri Colmenares and Carlos Zarate of Bayan Muna party-list – didn’t only give the thumbs down on the anti-selfie bill, but said that it should simply be scrapped, at least in its current form.
“We support the position of media groups… to have this bill scrapped because it would really have a chilling effect on media and even curtail freedom of expression in the form of selfies and groupies,” Colmenares said.
On Friday, Zarate released a statement airing his apprehension over the measure which has “serious implications on freedom of expression and press freedom.”
“At first glance, the terms used in these provisions may seem harmless and well meaning. Yet, a deeper look at how they will impact in everyday lives is truly worrisome. It affects not only those in the media profession but everyone,” Zarate pointed out.
Both Colmenares and Zarate said they welcomed the openness of the bill’s authors to bring HB No. 4807 back to the committee level so that it could be carefully reviewed and scrutinized for possible amendments or revision.
Under the proposed bill, the following acts will be considered an intrusion into the personal privacy of another and at the same time presumed to have been committed with the intent to gain or profit:
“1. The capturing by a camera or sound recording instrument of any type of visual image, sound recording or other physical impression of the person
“2. Trespassing on private property in order to capture any type of visual image, sound recording or other physical impression of any person, and
“3. Capturing any type of visual image, sound recording or other physical impression of a person or family activity through the use of a visual or auditory enhancement device even when no physical trespass has occurred, when the visual image, sound recording or other physical impression could not have been captured without a trespass if no enhancement device was used.
Section 4 of the bill says any person whose personal privacy was intruded as defined, may file a civil action against the person who committed the intrusion, obtain any appropriate relief, including compensatory damages, punitive damages, and injunctive and declaratory relief.
In such cases, the plaintiff may either by the person whose visual or auditory impression has been captured or the owner of the private property that was trespassed.
Only “legitimate law enforcement activities” are exempted from the Act.
The co-authors of the bill are Pangasinan 2nd district Rep. Leopoldo Bataoil, Buhay party-list Rep. Lito Atienza Jr., ABAMIN party-list Rep. Maximo Rodriguez Jr., Cebu 3rd District Rep. Gwendolyn Garcia and Bulacan 4th District Rep. Linabelle Ruth Villarica.
