A regram is what you call the method of reposting someone else’s Instagram photos. It’s a quick way of spreading information and making it viral, however, in worst case scenarios, it can also land you in court.
Such was the case of of actress Neri Naig-Miranda, the wife of Parokya ni Edgar vocalist Chito Miranda when she regrammed or reposted an Instagram post of Star Magic road manager Danilyn Nunga.
In a report by Inquirer.net, Nunga posted on her Instagram account in April 2015 a photo of Clarence Taguiam and Donna Marie Go and described them as bogus sellers of GoPro Hero3 action camera. Miranda then regrammed Nunga’s photo with the same message.
Taguiam and Go, who then learned about the post, denied that they sold a camera to Nunga and pursued a criminal complaint against the two. Although the Instagram posts were already taken down, Judge Ricky Jones Macabaya of the Regional Trial Court Branch 5 in Cebu City, has issued arrest warrants for Nunga and Miranda to face the charges in court.
According to Cebu City Prosecutor’s Office, Miranda was equally liable because she didn’t verify whether Nunga’s message was true or not.
Nunga and Miranda were charged with violations of Republic Act No. 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.
source: Inquirer (1), Inquirer (2)
Chilling effect/slippery slope right here. By a court who has no idea how the internet works.
Court that lives in the cave.
This cannot be considered as a new post, same photo with same statement. A purely knee-jerk sentiment. 2014 pa yan na case di pa rin alam ng judge at prosecutor yan
Think before you click.
i hope libel should be decriminalized because this always a tool for harassment.
I thought reposting and commenting in a post is not liable in court.
Crazy Court..
The report said, “Miranda then regrammed Nunga’s photo with the same message.” — meaning Miranda reposted the message (without, obviously, verifying the information she was making public). Had she merely commented on it or just forwarded/shared the link, Miranda would have not been liable.
to KYBERNETES:quote from rappler”If this is the case, can I freely comment or share on the alleged libelous statement without committing libel as long as I am not the original author?
Yes and no. The SC makes the distinction between the original post and a new post or comment “that creates an altogether new story.” In such a case, “then that should be considered an original posting on the internet.” The SC cites an imaginary situation: If someone posts the blog, “Armand is a thief!” and a Facebook friend “liked” or “shared” the original comment, or commented “Correct!” the latter merely agrees with the original statement and cannot be held liable for libel. But if the reader or Facebook friend or Twitter follower “does not merely react to the original posting but creates an altogether new defamatory story against Armand like ‘He beats his wife and children,’ then that should be considered an original posting on the internet,” the SC says.”