Philippines: Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 Less  obvious,  but  perhaps  even  more  serious,  is  the  failure  of  this  provision  to  take   into   account   the   particular   features   of   online   communication.   The   2011   Joint   Declaration   on   Freedom   of   Expression   and   the   Internet   included   the   following   statement:     Approaches   to   regulation   developed   for   other   means   of   communication   –   such   as   telephony  or  broadcasting  –  cannot  simply  be  transferred  to  the  Internet  but,  rather,   need  to  be  specifically  designed  for  it.16     The   specific   nature   of   the   Internet,   and   in   particular   its   ability   to   foster   open,   participatory   debate,   needs   to   be   taken   into   account   when   applying   content   restrictions  designed  for  an  offline  world  to  it.  The  rigidity  of  the  approach  taken  in   section   6   may   be   contrasted   with   the   flexibility   of   a   case-­‐by-­‐case   approach,   which   is   essentially  available  currently.  Under  this  approach,  online  content  that  potentially   breaches   criminal   law   provisions   could,   as   appropriate,   be   challenged   in   court,   where   interpretation   would   allow   for   any   necessary   adaptations   to   protect   freedom   of  expression  online.       This   general   problem   is   exacerbated   by   section   5(a)   of   the   Cybercrime   Prevention   Act,  which  criminalises  wilfully  aiding  or  abetting  in  the  commission  of  any  offence   under   the   Act.   Depending   on   how   “wilfully”   is   defined,   this   could   mean   that   Facebook   and   Twitter   themselves   incur   liability   for   any   dissemination   of   illegal   statements  by  their  users,  since  designing  and  maintaining  the  platform  upon  which   an   illegal   statement   is   published   could   be   understood   as   aiding   and   abetting   in   its   publication.  These  broad  extensions  of  liability  are  completely  incongruous  with  the   fluidity  of  online  speech.  It  would  be  impossible  for  Facebook  or  Google  to  function   if  they  were  to  be  held  responsible  for  every  statement  that  is  made  through  their   services.   As   such,   provisions   like   this   pose   a   real   threat   to   the   functionality   of   the   Internet.     Another   problem   with   the   Cybercrime   Prevention   Act   is   the   fact   that   section   7   allows  for  different  charges  to  be  levied  as  a  result  of  a  single  publication:     Liability  under  Other  Laws.  —  A  prosecution  under  this  Act  shall  be  without  prejudice   to  any  liability  for  violation  of  any  provision  of  the  Revised  Penal  Code,  as  amended,  or   special  laws.     Given   that   many   publications   put   out   the   same   material   online   and   offline,   this   provision  could  allow  multiple  criminal  charges  to  be  laid  over  the  same  statement.   In   other   words,   a   user   publishing   an   article   in   a   magazine   that   appears   both   in   print   and  online  could  be  charged  twice.     16  Note  14,  clause  1(c).  See  also  Reno  v.  ACLU,  521  US  844  (1997),  in  which  the  United  States  Supreme   Court  held  that  forms  of  regulation  designed  for  other  mediums  could  not  just  be  applied  to  the   Internet.   The Centre for Law and Democracy is a non-profit human rights organisation working internationally to provide legal expertise on foundational rights for democracy -6-