Politi-Ko! Sa Madaling Salita Define “obscenity” and “porn” | Define “obscenity” and “porn” |
|
|
| Written by Ivy Jean Vibar | |
| Wednesday, 26 November 2008 | |
|
SB
2464 is “An act prohibiting and penalizing the production,
printing, publication, importation, sale, distribution and exhibition
of obscene and pornographic materials and the exhibition of live
sexual acts, amending for the purpose Article 201 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended.”
Its short name is the “Anti-Obscenity
and Pornography Act of 2008.”
SB 2464, then House
Bill 3305, was transmitted to the Senate
on February 11, 2008, after unanimous approval at the House
of Representatives (207 voted yea, with no nays or abstains). Its
principal author was Cong.
Manuel “Way Kurat” Zamora, and it was co-authored by over 66
legislators. Its Senate endorser is Sen.
Manuel Villar.
According
to its abstract at the House of Representatives website, it
“enumerates the list of punishable acts in relation to the
production, printing, publication, importation, sale, exhibition and
distribution of obscene or pornographic materials in all forms of
mass media.”
Villar, in his explanatory note, said
that the bill is essential to protect the “integrity and the moral,
spiritual and social well-being” of citizens, “especially the
youth in general and women in particular, from the pernicious effects
of obscenity and pornography.”
However, whatever the bill's authors
intend, artists have spoken against it. “...[I]t has the potential
to seriously curtail not only my freedoms as an artist, but my
ability to make my own choices as a mature, intelligent and moral
human being,” comic book writer, artist and publisher Gerry
Alanguilan said
in his blog.
Former Movie
and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB)
chairperson Armida
Siguion Reyna said
in her Daily Tribune column No Holds Barred
that if the bill is passed, lawmakers will “completely slay the
creative energies of the few remaining Lav Diazes [who make
award-winning films].”
“This
bill gets passed, and gems where '…stark black-and-white
digital compositions frame a landscape so bleak and boulder-strewn,
so empty of habitation that it is hard to believe the land was not
barren from time primordial. Painful flashbacks to the region’s
past resurrect a lost Eden. The only thing more shocking than the
extent of the damage is the ages-deep acceptance in the eyes of the
survivors…' are forever judged in terms of breast and genital
exposure, and filmmaking be damned,” she added.
“Many of [National Artist Fernando]
Amorsolo's
works are female nudes with exposed breasts. If the bill passes, they
shall be deemed obscene and the show organizers liable for
punishment,” writer and arts advocate John Silva wrote
in his blog.
“The bill's assault on basic Filipino
liberties and rights will have serious cultural and economic
implications...If this bill passes, the Philippines
will be made a pariah in the international community akin to North
Korea, and in violation of the United
Nations Declaration on Human Rights of which this country is a
signatory,” he said.
The controversy surrounding the bill
lies in its definition of the terms “obscene,” “pornographic”
and “pornography,” which are vague and so seem all-encompassing.
What religion is the basis for the
standards of what is obscene? Who defines what is proper? Why
“regardless of the motive” of the people involved in the creation
of the materials?
“Pornography” and “pornographic,”
the bill says, “refers to objects or subjects of film, television
shows, photography, illustrations, music, games, paintings, drawings,
illustrations, advertisements, writings, literature or narratives,
contained in any format, whether audio or visual, still or moving
pictures, in all forms of film, print, electronic, outdoor or
broadcast mass media, or whatever future technologies to be
developed, which are calculated to excite, stimulate or arouse impure
thoughts and prurient interest, regardless of the motive of the
author thereof.”
How can it be established that
something is “calculated to excite, stimulate or arouse impure
thoughts and prurient interest”? How can calculations be derived if
the motive of the people involved don't matter?
If this bill passes into law,
“offenders” can spend three to 12 years in prison, and will be
slapped with fines ranging from P200,000 to a hefty P1M, depending on
the charges. Those below 18 years of age will be considered victims
of child abuse, and will be placed under the protective custody of
the Department
of Social Welfare and Development.
Section 4 of the Philippine
Constitution, in the Bill of Rights, says, “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.”
This bill, if passed, will effectively
limit the freedom of expression. Prior restraint, censorship—of
whatever kind or degree —goes against one of the people's most
basic liberties.
A similar bill, the “Anti-pornography
Law,” was recently passed by the Indonesian House of
Representatives, reported
the Asia Sentinel.
The law “aimed to shield the young
from pornographic materials and lewd acts,” Xinhua quoted
Indonesian lawmaker Sapriyansyah. “According to the law, it does
not matter should someone wear semi-naked clothes [in the] interest
of culture, religion or [habit]...[as long as] they wear [them] in
the right place” he said.
The bill's critics “claim its
provisions are a first step towards imposing Sharia law,” Time
said.
“Widespread protests to a previous, more severe version of the law
in 2006 forced legislators to amend it, but efforts to shelve it
altogether were defeated on Oct. 30.”
“The law is wide open to
interpretation and could even apply to voice, sound, poetry, works of
art or literature. Anything that supposedly raises the libido could
be prosecutable,” Time quoted
Kadek Krishna Adidharma, a Balinese who “see[s] the law as an
attempt by the Indonesian Muslim majority to impose their will on the
rest of the country.”
The governor of Bali pledged on Oct. 31
not to enforce the law in the predominantly Hindu province, which
relies heavily on tourism for income, Reuters reported.
“We cannot implement the law because
it isn't compatible with Balinese philosophy and social values,”
Bali Gov. I Made Mangku Pastika said.
“The [anti-pornography] law is very,
very problematic. I fear the consequences at the grass-roots level,”
Asia Sentinel quoted
Women's Partnership Network coordinator Umi Farida, who heads the
“coalition of organizations that monitored deliberations on the
bill and opposed its passage.”
Photo 1:
“Painted Women” by *davierae*,
taken from Flickr.com. Licensed under Creative Commons license number
BY-2.0-DEED.EN. Photo is of Pablo Picasso's “Les Demoiselles
d'Avignon.” Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites           |
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
Ano'ng Say Mo?
In Action!
...coffee break!...
"Among Ed"
Governor Ed Panlilio
Province of Pampanga, Philippines
Photo courtesy of ~MVI~
of flickr ;
licensed under Creative Commons License BY-2.0
Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
Politi-Quote
If they can't accept it, they can jump into the lake. Very wide naman ang North Sea.
—Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez, to the family of murdered 16-year-old Maureen Hultman when Hultman's killer was granted executive clemency, quoted by Inquirer.net.
Usapang Barbero
Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Philippines