Philippines: Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 to.  This,  in  turn,  threatens  to  effect  a  balkanisation  of  the  Internet,  undermining  its   power  as  a  global  medium.         Overly  broad  assertions  of  jurisdiction  have  proven  to  be  particularly  problematic  in   the   context   of   defamation,   where   they   have   led   to   the   phenomenon   of   “libel   tourism”,   whereby   well-­‐resourced   litigants   file   suit   in   countries   with   plaintiff   friendly   defamation   laws.   The   most   notorious   destination   for   libel   tourism,   the   United  Kingdom,  is  currently  in  the  process  of  amending  its  laws,  in  part  to  prevent   this  type  of  abuse.       It   is   unreasonable   for   the   government   of   the   Philippines   to   expect   to   regulate   the   entire   Internet.   Instead,   the   jurisdiction   of   the   Cybercrime   Prevention   Act   should   be   limited  to  cases  where  either  the  offending  conduct  originates  within  the  Philippines   or  where  substantial  harm  has  taken  place  within  the  Philippines.       Recommendation:     Ø Section   21   should   be   amended   so   that   it   only   applies   to   acts   committed   within   the   Philippines   or   to   acts   where   substantial   harm   takes   place   in   the   Philippines.     5. Sexual Offences   Section   4(c)(1)   of   the   Cybercrime   Prevention   Act,   which   criminalises   cybersex,   should  be  reconsidered:     Cybersex.   —   The   willful   engagement,   maintenance,   control,   or   operation,   directly   or   indirectly,  of  any  lascivious  exhibition  of  sexual  organs  or  sexual  activity,  with  the  aid   of  a  computer  system,  for  favor  or  consideration.     It   is   to   be   expected   that   different   countries   will   have   different   attitudes   towards   pornography   and   obscenity.   As   the   UN   Human   Rights   Committee   has   pointed   out,   “public   morals   differ   widely.   There   is   no   universally   applicable   common   standard.   Consequently,  in  this  respect,  a  certain  margin  of  discretion  must  be  accorded  to  the   responsible  national  authorities.”22     However,  while  the  Philippines  would  not  be  the  first  country  in  the  world  to  take   such   a   firm   a   stand   against   sexual   content   on   the   Internet,   this   approach   is   considerably  harsher  than  that  found  in  most  democratic  countries.  It  also  goes  far   beyond   the   Act’s   stated   purpose   of   protecting   children   from   exploitation   by   22  Hertzberg  et  al.  v.  Finland,  2  April  1982,  Communication  No.  61/1979,  para.  10.3.   The Centre for Law and Democracy is a non-profit human rights organisation working internationally to provide legal expertise on foundational rights for democracy - 12 -