The Brian Gorrell Story on Media in Focus

Abe Olandres Editor-in-chief March 25, 2008 · 3 min read

Listen to article

Instagram now lets users reorder their posts on their profile iOS 27 Adds Native Baybayin Keyboard to iPhone: Here is How to Enable It AMD Radeon RX 9070 GRE announced GPD MicroPC 2 with Intel Core 3 N350 announced Nintendo Direct to unveil Switch 2 games for second half of 2026

Since the Brian Gorrell blog has emerged a couple weeks ago, I tried to steer away from it because of its libelous nature. Obviously, tens of thousands of people are visiting this Australian guy’s blog about his Filipino ex-lover and the $70,000 money the latter owed him that it has gotten him much attention from the press. This evening, we taped the panel discussion at ANC’s Media in Focus discussing the social and legal ramifications of this phenomenon.

Anybody who’s been following his blog knows the scandalous posts and pictures will only attract libel suits. Lawyer’s of the parties involved have made their moves so far, though nothing concrete has been done. Google, the owner of Blogger.com where the BlogSpot blog is being hosted, has been sent a letter of request to take down the blog as well (not sure if it’s a C&D though).

What other bloggers who have been religiously covering this issue is that they might be also accountable about the spread of such libelous acts and can be held liable in Philippine courts. That’s according to Atty. JJ Disini who was also one of the resource speakers of ANC. Even JV Rufino, EIC of Inquirer.net, said he made sure all their articles (9 so far and counting) steer clear of identifying names, linking or publishing URLs.

Here’s what bloggers might be doing that could get them into trouble if they’re covering the issue.

Publicly mentioning names of people being exposed in the blog.
Posting pictures of the people being named by Brian Gorrell in his blog.
Publishing the URL of the blog or linking to the blog.
Quoting a libelous sentence on the blog or re-publishing/summarizing allegations thereof.

The personalities and families of the people being exposed in the blog are desperate to end this and looks like they’re doing everything they can to stop people from talking about it and they will include bloggers too.

Watch Media in Focus on ANC this Thursday to learn more about this issue. We tried real hard not to name names or mention the blog. The only name we can really talk about in the segment was Brian Gorrell himself.

Updated: To those who are unfamiliar with my previous battles with libel cases in the Philippines, please refer to this, this and this. In fact, I still have another one right now in Civil Court.

Please read them first so you’ll know where I’m coming from and how ridiculous our system is.

[tags]brian gorell, brian gorrell blog blogger[/tags]

React to this article:

Abe Olandres

Editor-in-chief

Abe is the founder and Editor-in-Chief of YugaTech with over 20 years of experience in the technology industry. He is one of the pioneers of blogging in the country and is considered by many as the Father of Tech Blogging in the Philippines.

8,007 Articles

View all posts by Abe Olandres →

169 Comments

Eugene · 18 years ago

Talk about shooting the messenger. Abe just reported what some third party lawyers (albeit invited by a Lopez-owned company) are saying in a panel discussion and people are then attacking Abe and his income? Tsk, tsk, tsk.

sparks · 18 years ago

somebody tape it and upload to youtube!

cupid4you · 18 years ago

Have you seen this?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=LMXeVhxHNFQ

spanx! · 18 years ago

from google:

Media In Focus is aired every Thursday,
6:00 PM, on ANC,

with replays on the same day at 11:00 PM

and on Saturdays, 6:00 AM and 5:00 PM.

spanx! · 18 years ago

Yuga’s now a nominee for the
“Master (link) Baiter”
Award for 2008!!

go yuga! boo malu!

http://www.yugatech.com/blog/blogosphere/malu-fernandez-gunning-for-master-link-baiter-of-the-year/

Peejay · 18 years ago

what time is the show going to air?

and i agree with my friend spanx that it should have aired live and with interaction via the net and call in questions.

imnotstupid · 18 years ago

â€œI tried to steer away from it because of its libelous nature. Obviously, tens of thousands of people are visiting this Australian guyâ€™s blogâ€¦â€

Steer away? Ok, being libelous in nature or brouhaha as you or the lawyers called it, you steer away your attention but the next morning because of tens of thousands of people visiting the said blog, you made an entry about Brian Gorrell, in a form of media mileage, publicity.

You decided to make some entry because you are invited to a panel debate on social and legal implications of this observable fact? Donâ€™t get the point.

You know people will react. Now, you got a piece of the action and Brian Gorrell retort, another Google Adsense income?

ajay · 18 years ago

Ouch! I did!!!! Couldn’t resist :D

Chase Ravndal · 18 years ago

I think everything just stops if someone pays the money he owes. But I guess hiring lawyers and paying people to do the dirty work in the Phils. is way cheaper than paying up a measly 70k AUD.

Sam · 18 years ago

Yuga,

Your article is in Brian’s blogspot now hahahaa…I won’t post the link but I think you should check it yourself :)

sam

ilych · 18 years ago

“but try to read beyond abe’s minefield of grammatical error scribble he passes for an article and you’ll quickly realize that it’s a nothing more than a scaremongering maneuver! of course, not without nice incentives, cos that’s how abe sustain his indulgent for greasy junk food”! is this libel? this is from the comment section of that blog.

noemi · 18 years ago

Drew, maybe not google but take a look at this blogger

http://www.shoemoney.com/2006/09/01/shoemoneycom-involved-in-a-landmark-blog-case-slander-in-comments/

” am sorry I have to be so vague but it appears that I am going to be deposition and logs from my blog will be subpoena for use in a case where 1 person slandered another on my blog. Anyway it looks like 1 of the people is seeking damages for what the other said on my blog.”

I once received a subpoena for a slanderous comment in my blog but since the case was outside the Philippines, I didn’t have to comply.

lisa · 18 years ago

Google won’t delete the blog.

See thegutterpost.blogspot.com for the edison chen scandal.

the hk, chinese, singaporean, taiwanese and japanese governments already got involved to no avail.

mari · 18 years ago

this scandal has gone out of proportions. i’m not sure if google or blogger is in the position of deleting brian’s blog. plus, which country’s jurisdictions shall apply?

sharbaraz · 18 years ago

Any defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, so malice doesn’t have to be proved at all.

As for truthfulness, here is the relevant article from the Revised Penal Code:

Art. 361. Proof of the truth. â€” In every criminal prosecution for libel, the truth may be given in evidence to the court and if it appears that the matter charged as libelous is true, and, moreover, that it was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the defendants shall be acquitted.

Proof of the truth of an imputation of an act or omission not constituting a crime shall not be admitted, unless the imputation shall have been made against Government employees with respect to facts related to the discharge of their official duties.

In such cases if the defendant proves the truth of the imputation made by him, he shall be acquitted.

lisa · 18 years ago

I hereby nominate Abe Olandres as linkbaiter for 2008.

spanx! · 18 years ago

yuga,

mea culpa, mea culpa.

i didn’t realize that this issue hit so close to home.

what an interesting (online) world we live in!

Eugene · 18 years ago

Guys, you might want to read up on the Wikipedia article on Defamation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation) which includes slander and libel. Like what Luis said above, “in some systems, however, notably the Philippines, truth alone is not a defense.”

But you think libel laws are bad in the Philippines? Then read the same article on Wikipedia and look up Singapore. Apparently, even if there’s no malice involved, you can get convicted there.

Abe Olandres Editor-in-chief · 18 years ago

Reporting of Facts – are those reporting the facts fair in their reportage? Are all sides of the story been threshed out and given the same amount of “air time”?

I guess what I’m driving at, from a perspective of a person who has been dragged into a libel case for ridiculous reasons, is the idea of not getting all these “questions” be a cause for someone else to be sent a subpoena.

True, fat chance that a libel case can succeed. But that’s not just the point — are the people who involved themselves willing and have the money to get involved once this goes to the courts?

In the courts, everybody loses because everybody spends for their lawyers and waste time to attend hearings that drags for years.

All these issues or questions will never be settled until a judgement has been handed down. Question is, who wants to be the pawn and test out the waters?

Andre · 18 years ago

just goes to show what kind of country and government we live in.

noemi · 18 years ago

“How on earth would mere linking to his blog be libelous? ”

My husband (a lawyer) is of the opinion that linking is not libelous but agrees that quoting portions of a libelous entry may not be a good idea.

Drew · 18 years ago

> If the â€œtruthâ€ constitutes a crime, it can be used as a defense if the act has no malice.

By “act” I meant if the libelous act was proven to have no malicious intent.

Drew · 18 years ago

Again, scare tactics.

@noemi: Snooping for all the commenters’ ip addresses raises serious privacy issues. Google did not give in to the FBI before, they will certainly not give in to the NBI for this petty case. The blog probably has thousands of anonymous comments by now. It’s simply not feasible.

@yuga: Let me make some clarifications:

> according to Revised Penal Code, only Public Officials not public personalities. The stories are about their privates lives still.

Only if the article was made in good faith. If it is tainted with malice or ill will, then that amounts to libel, whoever the defamed may be.

> linking to the blog is akin to helping spread the allegations or libelous accusations.

Linking alone is not tantamount to libel. Again, scare tactics.

> in some cases, the truth can be used as a defense, but if only they are taken from a court proceeding.

If the “truth” constitutes a crime, it can be used as a defense if the act has no malice.

There is no legal precedent that has convicted a blogger of libel. But I’ll have to say that Disini has effectively scared the sh*t out of bloggers from talking about this issue.

ilych · 18 years ago

now you are getting a beating in the comments section of the infamous blog. Check it out.

Eliza · 18 years ago

How on earth would mere linking to his blog be libelous? I think it would depend on how the blogger treats the issue.

That is just sooo Gestapo.

Luis Cruz · 18 years ago

I’m not a lawyer, but from what I’ve learned in school, online, and pretty much in life, here are my two centavos:

I don’t quite understand how the four things you mentioned (mentioning names, posting pictures, publishing the URL of the blog or linking to the blog, and quoting a libelous sentence on the blog) can get bloggers in trouble, especially if what they are doing is simply reporting the facts. In this case, the fact is that somebody is making libelous statements on a blog.

What could those bloggers be charged with? I don’t think it’s libel. The four requirements of libel are:
(a) it must be defamatory;
(b) it must be malicious;
(c) it must be given publicity; and
(d) the victim must be identifiable.

C is accomplished simply by the fact that blogs are online and viewed by others, while A & D are covered by the actions you mentioned. The thing is, how do you prove malice?

Of course, in Brian Gorrell’s case, I think he’d be in trouble in Philippine courts. Reading further down in the same article, we learn that:
“Truth then is not a defense, unless it is shown that the matter charged as libelous was made with good motives and for justifiable ends.”

Yes, I can sympathize with Brian and his sad tale, but I don’t quite see “good motives” and “justifiable ends” in his actions.

Outside of Philippine law, you’ve got the EFF’s view on defamation or libel which gives the following requirements:
1. a publication to one other than the person defamed;
2. a false statement of fact;
3. that is understood as
a. being of and concerning the plaintiff; and
b. tending to harm the reputation of plaintiff.
4. If the plaintiff is a public figure, he or she must also prove actual malice.

Still in the EFF article is their view on how truth affects the defamation or libel claim:
“Yes. Truth is an absolute defense to a defamation claim. But keep in mind that the truth may be difficult and expensive to prove.”

This is where Brian might find his legal refuge, particularly because he isn’t in the Philippines. He does have truth on his side – just not quite in the Philippines, unfortunately.

As for the rest of us bloggers, the EFF article continues:
Many jurisdictions recognize a “neutral reportage” privilege, which protects “accurate and disinterested reporting” about potentially libelous accusations arising in public controversies. As one court put it, “The public interest in being fully informed about controversies that often rage around sensitive issues demands that the press be afforded the freedom to report such charges without assuming responsibility for them.”

I’m still not quite sure how Philippine laws will apply, but I think this gives any bloggers “reporting” on the events some refuge.

I think I’ve said more than two centavos worth there, haven’t I?

eric · 18 years ago

Abe, he has written a new post pertaining to THIS blog post.

Abe Olandres Editor-in-chief · 18 years ago

@MiGs, we asked the same questions to Atty. Disini and here’s what we got:

– according to Revised Penal Code, only Public Officials not public personalities. The stories are about their privates lives still.

– can raise privacy issues

– linking to the blog is akin to helping spread the allegations or libelous accusations.

– in some cases, the truth can be used as a defense, but if only they are taken from a court proceedings.

I wasn’t in the legal panel. JJ Disini explained that part more clearly.

Jeffrey · 18 years ago

I know who wrote that Wikipedia entry.

Not really interested in this “controversy.”

MiGs · 18 years ago

> Publicly mentioning names of people being exposed in the blog.

– ummm aren’t public figures?

> Posting pictures of the people being named by Brian Gorrell in his blog.

– same as the first one

> Publishing the URL of the blog or linking to the blog.

– Haven’t the court heard of link exchange? and maybe another arguement would be that “its good for business – internet marketing, seo” yah no…

> Quoting a libelous sentence on the blog or re-publishing/summarizing allegations thereof

– not if you’re after the truth. Like.. “Brian said that celine uses drugs.. i have tried to get the reaction of celine to clarify the issue but she can’t be reached” or “Celine, this blog is open to hear your side of the story”

Abe Olandres Editor-in-chief · 18 years ago

@Eliza, I’m no lawyer so I cannot expound on the legalese of the issue. All I do is trust the advise of my lawyers.

@spanx, it was an advise from their legal department. Even if we did, it would have been deleted from the recording as ANC will be ultimately liable for airing it.

I’ve been battling a libel case myself for over a year now, even though I know I didn’t do anything wrong, it was a costly waste of judicial exercise.

Let’s face it, in the Philippines, battling libel is not about freedom of speech or ruining reputation. It’s about who has influence and connections and who has tons of money that can last a lengthy and costly court hearing.

I should know. It blew a hole thru my pocket. My last 2 libel cases got me sleepless nights and a burned savings account.

yayix · 18 years ago

think about this guys..who owns ANC or ABS-CBN?

chenelyn · 18 years ago

may i ask what timeslot media in focus will be on thursday? type ko siya panoorin.

spanx! · 18 years ago

the show should have been aired live, not taped, to allow more participation and inputs from bloggers, who are directly affected by what is essentially,

AN EFFORT TO MUZZLE FREE SPEECH ON THE ‘NET.

the issue isn’t just about Brian, yuga.

trite as this may sound, it’s about using threats and outdated laws to control the new media, the blogs.

“…We tried real hard not to name names or mention the blog.”

I’m really sorry to have to say this,
but the statement above sounds like a total
cop out from you and the other guests…

Eliza · 18 years ago

“@asdix, in the Philippine courts, even the truth is not a defense against libel. Atty. JJ Disini explained this during the show. Watch him on Thursday.”

Another simplistic statement.

Truth IS a defense for the accused against libel if :

1. The accused imputes to the offended party the commission of a CRIME, and such offended party is a private individual (not a public officer).

2. The accused imputes to the offended party a vice, or or any act that does not constitute a crime with respect to facts related to the discharge of official duties of a public person (public officer).

Truth IS NOT a defense if the accused imputes to the offended party a vice, defect, or act other than a crime and the offended party is a PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL.

sparks · 18 years ago

Oh freedom of speech. How dear you have become. Only a few can afford you. Mabuhay ang Pilipinas.

Eliza · 18 years ago

“What other bloggers who have been religiously covering this issue is that theyâ€™re also accountable about the spread of such libelous acts and can be held liable in Philippine courts.”

I think this is just too simplistic a statement. There are factors, other than the publication of the libelous material, to consider before one can be charged or found guilty of libel.

Yeah, I agree. Scare tactic.

BrianB · 18 years ago

“Who knows the parties involved will spring a surprise?”

Don’t think so. The last thing they want is make more enemies. Money? Everyone’s got money, and a lot of lawyers will be ecstatic defending against these people’s legal attacks.

They are on their way down unless they can get the people’s sympathy on their side. The ball is on Gorrell’s court.

lisa · 18 years ago

I think it’s impossible for google to shut this site down. How can one explain the notorious Edison Chen pornography scandal that are hosted on google sites?

Abe Olandres Editor-in-chief · 18 years ago

@noems, yes, I heard about the influence and reach of these people and I know how their monies can stretch the arm of the law.

@brian, we were advised by ABS CBN Legal department to avoid mentioning those names on TV. It’s good that it was taped so they could edit it before airing.

@asdix, in the Philippine courts, even the truth is not a defense against libel. Atty. JJ Disini explained this during the show. Watch him on Thursday.

asdix · 18 years ago

how can the truth become libelous? lol
i think, it’d only be “slander” if and only if the author, publicly maligns the subject using false accusations, in gorell’s case. He had all the proof he could ever want.

__ · 18 years ago

@ BrianB

I’ll let you judge for yourself. For one to be called libel, there must be: defamation, publication, identification of person defamed, and malicious imputation.

noemi · 18 years ago

Yes I know that blogging about the names/people mentioned are libelous that’s why I never blogged about it. I know others tackled the legal issues involved which is good.

even the anonymous commenters are liable if they made slanderous comments. They think they are anonymous. Wait till there is a court order requesting for those IP numbers.

Who knows the parties involved will spring a surprise?

jhay · 18 years ago

Heard about it but never really visited the blog. I have better things to do than read about other people’s personal issues. It’s like I could do anything real about it.

It’s just sad that it had to be like this.

BrianB · 18 years ago

Coke, Celine, Coke, Lopez, Delfin, Coke, Montano, DJ, Yap, Tim, Phil star,

Cocaine, philstar, philippine star, celine…

Tinio, Lopez. Gucci, crespo, gang of socialites, manila socialites, cocaine. Montano, epperson.

Is the above libel?

Drew · 18 years ago

Scare tactics. This stuff is newsworthy. As long as the article doesn’t have malicious intent, the Inquirer can name all the names they want. But I guess their owners and some columnists might get upset, so…

lisa · 18 years ago

What does it mean for Victor Agustin who covered the saga on Cocktales and Manila Standard Today, with names, URL, etc?

http://www.cocktales.com.ph/not-so-gay-parade/

http://www.cocktales.com.ph/hell-hath-no-fury/

L.A · 18 years ago

@Pacute – You can just search teh name of Google, I’m sure it will appear of 1st page…

Eugene · 18 years ago

I really think that the libel/slander law in the Philippines needs to be reviewed. Only the imputation of malice is enough to convict you regardless of whatever you say is true or not.

On a different note, Wikipedia already has a nice article about the controversy. Do a Google search on “brian gorrell wikipedia.” The whole content of the article is sourced and attributed to various articles and websites.