I.

Introduction
The internet is arguably the most important breakthrough in the field of

communications in the latter part of the 20th century. It has changed how people communicate with each other. Even the United Nations recognized the breakthrough and importance of the internet and declared access to it as a human right:
Unlike any other medium, the Internet enables individuals to se ek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds instantaneously and inexpensively across national borders. By vastly expanding the capacity of individuals to enjoy their right to freedom of opinion and expression, which is an enabler of other human rights, the Internet boosts economic, social and political development, and contributes to the progress of humankind as a whole. In this regard, the Special Rapporteur encourages other Special Procedures mandate holders to engage on the issue of the Internet with respect to their particular mandates. -Frank La Rue on the May 2011 UN Special Rapporteur Report

Impact of the Internet and as a New Public Sphere

As the internet is an enabler of human rights as it boosts economic, social and political development because it facilitates discussions between persons across the world it can be called as a modern public sphere. Developed by the ancient Greeks the public sphere is made up of private people gathered together as a public and articulating the needs of society with the state. Through acts of assembly and dialogue, the public sphere generates opinions and attitudes which serve to affirm or challengetherefore, to guide-the affairs of state. In ideal terms, the public sphere is the source of public opinion which is according to Paul Rutherford is needed legitimate authority in any functioning democracy. Jurgen Habermas, one of the leading authorities in the

notion of the public sphere constructed three criteria of the public sphere namely: (1) disregard of status, (2) domain of common concern, (3) inclusivity. The status of a person in a public sphere is not important as the discussions are of everyones concern and that all are given the opportunity to talk. The same could be also said in the internet. In internet forums or in any other platform where a person can discuss matters of public concern status is useless as it is everyones concern which is also the second criteria. Topics discussed in the internet can encompass all socioeconomic classes. There is much debate however on the last criterion which is being inclusive. Even though the topics at hand were for everyone, the persons who can join in are somehow limited. In the 18th century only middle class men were the members of the public sphere. The lower class and the women were shunned and looked down upon. As in the case of the internet, not everyone has access to it especially those people who live in rural areas and because of that they are unable to join into discussions. Although there are talks of countries setting up national internet connection and the UN declared it as a right, there are still millions of people who dont have access to the internet.

Freedom of Expression in the Internet

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. Article 3, Section 4 1987 Philippine Constitution

The attitude of people over the internet may not be one that can be thoroughly regulated due to the number of people online. As times change, the uses of the internet changes as well. From the advent of the internet to what it is now, one can actually say

that they are of two different cultures. The internet first served as an information database for the military called ARPANET. Today, the internet serves varying purposes to different people. Some use it for research, for marketing and advertising, while some use it as an avenue for their ideas, emotions and other things. In order for people to be able to broadcast these things over the internet, private companies have been able to develop systems known as Social Networking Sites (i.e. Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, etc.) wherein people are given the chance to be interconnected to one another regardless of distance and time-differences. These services are often offered for free but first, one must agree to the terms and conditions of the private platform that they are signing up for. Due to this agreement, the user surrenders gives the server or domain such as Twitter, Facebook or other social and micro-blogging sites to be able to censor or even delete posts that they find objectionable (Patel, 2012). So does this mean, then, that we have no freedom of speech in the internet? No, because there are a whole lot of other ways to be able to voice out opinions and other things on the internet like setting up ones own domain, or creating private sites, etc. The control that these private companies have over the people who, in a sense, consume the service that they offer are mere manifestations that the freedom of speech, wherever one may be, is never absolute. Objectionable posts need to be censored and filtered out so as to maintain a peaceful community for the benefit of all the people that uses the service. Patel said in his article Tweets of Rage: Does Free Speech on the Internet Actually Exist? quoting EFFs Timm, Twitter is the best of the large services. They try to stay true to the First Amendment as much as possible. Meaning to say that though these companies have

the power, they do not disregard that fact the freedom of speech is indeed a very important right that needs to be granted, whether online or not.

Anonymity in the Internet

In viewing anonymity in the Communications perspective, it is defined as that power which enables one to blur his identity while expressing his beliefs, ideas and opinions. By being anonymous, one enables himself to participate in matters of social importance such as that of the government, politics and policy. If anonymity is threatened, then the ability to express freely an idea without the stern restrictions of the authority might be curtailed. Anonymity allows individuals to consume and/or provide unpopular, controversial, or embarrassing information without sacrificing privacy or reputations (Phelps, 2003). Lawsuits have been present and legal efforts were executed against anonymous online postings by plaintiffs who raise allegations about them being defamed by anonymous internet posts (Phelps, 2003). Opponents have regarded anonymity as merely cover for defamation and libel (Wilson, 2006). If there were any allegations of defamation against an internet poster, the court approves a subpoena which calls the identity of a poster and compels the identity service providers (ISPs) to disclose an individuals name even before a defamatory allegation is proven (Phelps, 2003). This legal step enables companies or other powerful groups to use the legal discovery process to intimidate anonymous users (Phelps, 2003).

Constitutional Protection of Anonymous Speech

The Supreme Court has not articulated a clear rule or balancing test to determine when the government may pierce the veil of anonymity of speakers on the Internet who have posted allegedly defamatory statements (Barclay, 2010). Some challenges arise

when one creates a discourse between protection of privacy and the rule of law. First, it is important to note that when a court forces a speaker to disclose his or her identity, the court is going beyond the ordinary civil punishment for defamatory speech; the court is actually compelling the anonymous individual to speak his or her identity, thereby directly interfering with the individual's freedom of speech (Barclay, 2010). Therefore, the identity is less important and is clearly distinguished from the content of the individuals speech. Second, at least one court has observed that "there is reason to believe that many defamation plaintiffs bring suit merely to unmask the identities of anonymous critics (Barclay, 2010). This observation raises particular concerns in the area of anonymous speech because if plaintiffs are able to bring superfluous lawsuits, regardless of the validity of the claim, then they could do so merely to strip the speaker of anonymity (Barclay, 2010). Stripping off anonymity against a defendant therefore may be just a means to impose silence on a plaintiffs critic. Many speakers could be stripped of their anonymity, literally, as a punishment for unappreciated speech that is not necessarily defamatory (Barclay, 2010). Lyrissa Lidsky recently argued that the "right to anonymous speech is better termed a qualified privilege as it is "not absolute but must be balanced against plaintiffs' interests (Gleicher, 2008). An author's decision to identify himself should be a question of authorial autonomy: "An author generally is free to decide whether or not to disclose his or her true identity." (Gleicher, 2008). Although anonymity in the internet appears to grant an immense power to inflict damage on someones reputation, there are some ways to effectively help in charging someone with libel on the internet.

II.

Review of Related Literature

Cybercrime is defined as unethical activities committed in cyberspace through

the use of internet technology (Curtis, et al., 2009). It entails two categories: 1) intrusion of private data to commit a crime and 2) those involving fraud, falsification, diversion of funds, obtaining illicit content, or defamation via online services (Curtis, et al., 2009). The advent of the internet and the potential criminal behavior that comes along with it poses immediate challenges towards maintenance and law enforcement because of the fact that internet-related crimes take place in a global context while crime is nationally defined. (Wall, 2007) There are many other definitions of Cybercrime and may vary depending on the place and location. In Russia, A. Shchetilov includes in his definition of cybercrime all types of crime that involve perpetrators infringement in the telecommunications sphere (Curtis, et al., 2009). In China, Cybercrime involves crimes that utilize desktop computers and those who have computers as instruments and as main tools to commit crimes. . In his study of the legal issues of cybercrime in China, Chen Junjings definition of cybercrime includes, but is not limited to, the following activities: fraud, Internet pornography and sexual harassment, trafficking and sale of prohibited goods, damage to peoples reputations and invasion of thei r privacy, and manufacture and dissemination of computer viruses (Curtis, et al., 2009). Little is known about Cybercrime. One might observe the clear definition of cyberspace crime as an unlawful and harmful behavior that takes place in an online space. (Wall, 2007) Cybercrimes, uniquely different from traditional crimes, are often harder to detect and prosecute (Curtis, et al., 2009). Such crimes prove to be more prevalent and more sophisticated because of its very nature and the sophistication of

the means in which it is carried out. Because of its gravity, crimes of such nature damage the society with great extent and are harder to prevent. In her study of the use of cybercrime for fraudulent financial activity in France, Vanessa Vitaline identifies typical characteristics of cybercrime: it is inexpensive, fast, anonymous, and has global impact (Curtis, et al., 2009). Crimes committed are usually done at a place different t from the location where the victim sustains harm or where the damage occurs (Curtis, et al., 2009) The future of the public police role in policing the Internet is about more than simply acquiring new expert knowledge and capacity (Wall, 2007). Although technology entails a powerful mechanism to commit crimes, it also enables the authorities to carry out their policing power. For an instance, technologys surveillance characteristics make it a natural tool for overseeing police practice, and for creating broader organizational and public accountability (Wall, 2007). Broadly speaking, defamation takes one of two forms: libel, which is a damaging statement in printed or written form (including publications, signs, and motion pictures); and slander, a damaging statement that is spoken (Townsend, Aalberts, & Gibson, 2000). Not all languages that damage are considered defamatory. Some exceptions include those damaging remarks but are considered truthful do not defame. Remarks directed at public officers, celebrities are also not penalized. For public figures to bring a defamation suit, they must generally show the defendants statements were made maliciously or with reckless disregard for the truth, and were intended to cause harm to the plaintiff (Townsend, Aalberts, & Gibson, 2000)

Defamation committed through the use of the Internet is a widespread act with real people suffering its consequences. Through different search engines available, online defamations effects grow rapidly and enable more people to retrieve pri vate information about others (Miller, 2008). With the internet growing rapidly as years go by, communication in the global context becomes a click away and enables anyone to speak up through virtual means just by having a personal computer and internet connection. However, some users of social media fail to note that some comments and remarks left at the cyberspace can hunt people in so many ways. In addition to that, website owners and online companies are not liable for defamation committed by its users. Never before has it been so easy to reach so many with such limited effort; the simple fact is that many publishers act with both animus and anonymity (Newman & Anthony, 2011). To be actionable, such content must be a false and defamatory statement of and concerning the plaintiff, involve an unprivileged publication to a third party, and have been posted with fault amounting to at least negligence (Miller, 2008). While Internet users may view cyberspace as a new province independent of real-world concerns, the impact of Internet activity is felt in the real world and thus the resolution of Internet defamation cases must occur in a real-world jurisdiction (Bosky, 2012). The states interest is targeted at penalizing individuals who cause and inflict defamatory falsehood on other people (Miller, 2008). A defamatory comment or statement does much more than just annoy a victim (Miller, 2008). Such comments cause damaging results to ones reputation, inflict emotional and psychological torture, and haunt people, perhaps, longer than one could imagine.

In the field of Marketing and Business, several competitors pose as fake customers posting negative product reviews and false accusations with the hopes of degrading other companies and inflict damaging results to the companys sales. The written word on the Internet seems to carry instant credibility, and smart companies are becoming hyper-vigilant in protecting their reputations and defending against illegitimate posts (Newman & Anthony, 2011).

Libel in the Philippines is a disputable issue and punishable by fines and imprisonment. However, unlike other countries which are highly industrialized such as the USA, some countries in Asia and Europe, the developments in their technology paved way to enact new laws in order to update existing laws to keep up with these advancements an example of this is the identification of libel and defamation in the medium of the internet. The Philippines, having no specific law on libel in internet has challenged the current laws against defamatory statements amid the unrestricted nature of the internet. In 2009, a Department of Justice resolution established that Articles 353 and 360 of the Revised Penal Code covering libel do not apply to statements posted on websites and thus cannot be treated in the same light as statementsmade via media covered by the law.

Even so, three litigious cases of alleged libel committed through the internet were filed in recent years. They involved an arraignment of medical malpractice over Facebook against a famous cosmetic surgeon to local stars in 2009, (Dr. Vicki Belo vs. Atty. Argee Guevarra); a government official suing a citizen blogger in early 2010 after

she reported that relief goods were left to rot and Gina Alajars controversial suit for posting libelous statements on Facebook last 2010 against actress Krista Ranill o. The case filed by Dr. Vicki Belo was considered the first internet libel case in the country. However it was dismissed in 2011 on the grounds that prosecuting internet libel in the Philippines has jurisdictional constraints (Flores, 2011). On the case of the sued blogger, it is cautioned that the filing of a libel case against the bloggers namely Jade Ceres Dolor, Jade Ceres Violet Dolor and Ella Rose delos Santos could dissuade other bloggers from criticizing the government and exposing its shortcomings (Salaverria, 2010). In another case involving Gina Alajars controversial posts on Facebook, the Ranillo family's legal counsel Atty. Tonisito Umali insinuated that libel suits could be filed against media and Alajar. But as of posting time, no libel suits from the Ranillos have been reported (Servando, 2010).

There are no restrictions on anonymous communication in the Philippines. The government does not require the registration of user information prior to logging online or subscribing to the internet. Nonetheless, lawmakers in the country have persistently cautioned the public that the lack of internet regulation is resulting in the proliferation of cybercrimes, which range from explicit content for children in the internet to libelous statements online. As a result, several proposals have been pending to address issues regarding regulation of the internet (Kelly et al., 2011).

III. Statement of the Problem IV. Case Study V. Recommendations/Conclusions

John Doe is an alias which is given to an anonymous online personality who is hidden behind a name, usually not related to his real identity. John Doe was first conceived as "an entirely fictional character," on whose behalf plaintiffs could bring suits (Gleicher, 2008). Several John Does attack several people, both private and public, and corporations as well. These corporations take this matter seriously and are often compelled to take legal actions against them. John Doe suits have been used to identify employees leaking internal information, to respond to accusations that a CEO had been arrested for taking kickbacks, in response to criticism of management, business practices, and the personal lives of executives, and to reveal the identity of a message board user who called a corporation's management "blind, stupid and incompetent (Miller, 2008) Without a pseudonymous John Doe, the plaintiff cannot file his suit until he knows the identity of his defendant(s), and thus cannot rely on court-sanctioned discovery tools to identify them (Gleicher, 2008). Letting victims of defamation by anonymous online social media accounts enables them apply for a lawsuit lays out the fact that although they have no knowledge about the social media accounts identity, they can start the process of unveiling the identity of these anonymous social media accounts.

The John Doe Subpoena

In John Doe Lawsuits, the first step to shatter the anonymity of an online social media account is to issue a subpoena for the website in which that account is registered in. It is issued to an online service to reveal and track down the Internet Protocol (IP Address) of the user who made the online comment (Gleicher, 2008) This doesnt directly reveal the identity of the anonymous account, but instead reveals a string of numbers that identifies the owner of the computer (Gleicher, 2008). Blogging and forums situated in Cyberspace has gone through intense developments. It is thus fitting to say that the advent of the internet has contributed so much to the advancement of the development of free speech and development of marketplace of ideas. The internet also proved to be an avenue for the democratic expression of ones opinion. The internet facilitates speech so effectively that it makes it incredibly easy for a speaker to air out his or her identity while simultaneously reaching a vast audience, which was never done before. Anonymous speech conjures the image of a pamphleteer who speaks out against corruption, defying the voices of power and publishing anonymously for fear of reprisal (Gleicher, 2008). Anonymity on the internet enables one to communicate complaints, opinions and, at to some extent, remarks that may ridicule others. It is in this context that such are to be protected by the constitution and the right to freedom of speech be asserted. However, other commentators have argued that anonymity decreases speaker accountability and therefore increases the potential for "irresponsible, malicious, and harmful communication (Barclay, 2010). While permitting anonymous speech may protect an open marketplace of ideas, it also creates the danger of abuse inherent when individuals think that they will not be held responsible for their actions (Chilson , 2009)

Speech is protected just as strictly on the Internet as anywhere else, with the same exceptions for unprotected defamatory speech. (Chilson , 2009). New technology has made harassment more possible and powerful online even as it has empowered modern-day pamphleteers to speak anonymously to ever-growing audiences (Gleicher, 2008) . Anonymous speech done in the cyberspace also gives potential to threats to peoples reputation. Anonymity increasingly serves as a cover for gossip, defamation, harassment, and even assault on the Internet (Gleicher, 2008). The flash flood of anonymous speech that has surged into the cyber marketplace of ideas has brought with it complex legal issues that have challenged existing First Amendment doctrines in many areas, particularly in regards to the issue of potentially defamatory anonymous speech (Barclay, 2010). The internet, which has empowered public opinion and criticism, also managed to turn towards its users and take them as defendants against allegations of defamation. Faceless crowds of online tormentors wield virtual pitchforks, carry virtual torches, and hound innocent targets into hiding and out of the online world entirely (Gleicher, 2008). The rise of online harassment challenges the traditional justifications for anonymous speech. The most common argument for anonymity is that it increases the ability of people to speak, and protects speech that might not otherwise be heard. (Gleicher, 2008). In determining who is liable for defamatory Internet speech, courts, as well as Congress, have analogized Internet service providers ("ISPs") to libraries, bookstores, and newspapers,' ultimately shielding them from liability for defamatory statements made by their subscribers under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act ("CDA") (Chilson , 2009). Legal enforcement in this vast

and changing environment is precariously balanced on a single procedural tool: the John Doe subpoena (Gleicher, 2008). An anonymous user leaves a trail in the form of an IP address, recorded, and tied to a specific anonymous username (Pike, 2008) However, because the user's free speech and privacy rights are entitled to be protected, ISPs often will not release a subscriber's identifying information without a court order (Pike, 2008). Uncovering this identity often requires two steps. First, the plaintiff must subpoena the website, or online service provider (OSP), for the Internet protocol (IP) address of the user who made the online comments (Gleicher, 2008).

Bibliography
Barclay, S. (2010). Defamation and John Does: Increased Protections and Relaxed Standing Requirements for Anonymous Internet Speech. Brigham Young University Law Review , 1309-1337. Bosky, S. W. (2012). DEFAMATION IN THE INTERNET AGE: MISSOURI'S JURISDICTIONAL FIGHT BEGINS WITH BALDWIN V. FISCHER-SMIT. Saint Louis University Law Journal , 587-611. Calhoun, C. (1992). Further Reflections on the Public Sphere. In Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Chadwick, A., & Howard, P. N. (2008). The Handbook of Internet Politics. London: Routledge. Chilson , J. L. (2009). UNMASKING JOHN DOE: SETTING A STANDARD FOR DISCOVERY IN ANONYMOUS INTERNET DEFAMATION CASES. Virginia Law Review , 390-433. Curtis, G., Dolan, R., Elan, S., Ivey, N., Minkus, C., Solsten, E., et al. (2009). CYBERCRIME: AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SELECT FOREIGN-LANGUAGE ACADEMIC LITERATURE. The Library of Congress , 1-62. Fisher, W. (2001, June 14). Freedom of Expression on the Internet. Retrieved from The Berkman Center for Internet & Society: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ilaw/Speech/ Fraser, N. (1990). Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy. Duke University Press. Gleicher, N. (2008). John Doe Subpoenas: Toward a Consistent Legal Standard. The Yale Law Journal , 320-362.

Habermas, J. (1989). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Massachussets: The MIT Press. Hauser, G. A. (1998). Vernacular Dialogue and the Rhetoricality of Public Opinion. Communication Monographs , v65 n2 p83-107. La Rue, F. (2011). Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression. Miller, J. (2008). WHO'S EXPOSING JOHN DOE? DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE FIGURE PLAINTIFFS IN SUBPOENAS TO ISPS IN ANONYMOUS ONLINE DEFAMATION SUITS. JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY LAW & POLICY , 230-260. Newman, Z. G., & Anthony, E. (2011). Cyber-Defamation: It's Not Just Business as Usual. Business Torts Journal . Patel, N. (2012, December 4). Tweets of rage: does free speech on the internet actually exist? Retrieved from The Verge: http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/4/3726440/tweets-of-rage-free-speech-on-theinternet Phelps, E. (2003). Internet: Free Speech. Gale Encyclopedia of Everyday Law , 805-809. Pike, G. H. (2008, April 1). The Right To Remain Anonymous. Information Today , pp. 15-19. Ring, T., Salkin, R. M., & La Boda, S. (1995). International Dictionary of Historic Places: Southern Europe. Fitzroy Dearborn. Rutherford, P. (2000). Endless Propaganda: The Advertising of Public Goods. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Sperti, A. THE PUBLIC FORUM DOCTRINE AND ITS POSSIBLE APPLICATION TO THE INTERNET. Los Angeles: UCLA School of Law. Townsend, A. M., Aalberts, R. J., & Gibson, S. A. (2000). Libel and Slander on the Internet. Communications of the ACM , 15-17. Wall, D. (2007). Policing Cybercrimes: Situating the Public Police in Networks of Security within Cyberspace. Police Practice and Research , 183-205. Wilson, J. (2006). Internet Privacy. Gale Encyclopedia of Everyday Law , 1033-1039.