Friday, July 11, 2008 Arinday: Pornographic, obscene, erotic, etcetera By GH Arinday Jr. Sunfare
ADDED to the worldwide woes about the high costs of fuel and food zooming like furtive missiles to the heavens unknown, we have another "intractable problem", which is a class suit filed by the "messengers of God", led by a Manila congressman against the four leading glossy girlie magazines-Playboy, FHM, Maxim and Playhouse Men's Magazine.
The complaint before the Manila Prosecutor's Office is based on the violation of Ordinance 7780 of the City of Manila as well as Articles 200 and 201 of the Revised Penal Code. The complainants composed mostly of pastors and preachers of different churches in Metro Manila claimed that these publications "printed, published, distributed, circulated and sold" said monthlies which "contain pornographic, obscene, erotic, indecent or lewd pictures or poses that show, depict, exhibit, or describe nude or semi-nude bodies, sexual acts, sexual intercourse, private parts of the body of both male and female, etc".
The moral crusaders further claim the pictures of both men and women scantily clad are purely intended to arouse lust, stimulate sexual drive, excite "impure imaginations" or arouse "prurient interest".
I do not fault the complainants of airing such revelations, as I would surmise that they have experienced such sensations, which prompted them to file the class suit.
We cannot consider the complaint as one of the pushcart cases because other than the editorial and business staffs, the publishers whose names glitter in the business world like the Gokongweis and the Lopezes of the media giant ABS-CBN are named as respondents.
No doubt, the case could be sensationalized, as it would inevitably involve constitutional question. The controversy is as old as humankind and the debate shall be in the teeth of the pornographic storm.
Obscenity has a number of "mixed" definitions, which has been changing time and again in a numerous decisions handed down by the US Supreme Court. In our own jurisdiction, the wealth of such acceptable definitions has never been extensively discussed.
How could a picture of a semi-nude body excite "impure imaginations"? Sigmund Freud has pointed out that self-control proceeds from perspective. Neurosis is itself a catharsis and overblown fears would induce migraine. In brief, it is the moral fiber of an individual that counts much-and not what others would decide for you!
The late US Supreme Court Associate Justice William O. Douglas stated in the famous case of People vs. Henry Miller whose novel "Sexus" was considered as "hardcore" pornography:
"There are no constitutional guidelines for deciding what is and what is not 'obscene'... What shocks me may be sustenance to my neighbors. What causes one person to boil up in rage over one pamphlet or movie may reflect only his neurosis, not shared by others...."
The famous X-rated movie "Last Tango in Paris", starring Marlon Brando and Maria Schneider was considered "hardcore" pornography because of the explicit sexual congress but the US Supreme Court deemed the "sexual scenes" as buttons and the plot as the "coat". The literary value was brilliantly illustrated as the story revolved around the suicide of a wife after betraying her husband and later on found another love affair on a chance encounter and had sexual contacts.
There was a law student, obviously the patron of this type of publications, who told me that he figuratively kept as "roommates" the "sex bombs" of a particular magazine which kept him awake in the evening while keeping tab with his assignments and consider the images as "brain-boosters".
Obscenities are those disgusting to the senses. The woman's body is the temple of loveliness, irrespective of its shape. How about the Oblation of the University of the Philippines? If it is repulsive to the senses, why not blast it into smithereens?
If the present-day guardians of morality would expand their understanding of what is obscene, it is not necessary exclusive to the body of the man or woman barely covered. There are a lot of obscenities being committed daily not necessarily to arouse prurient interest. Is it not obscenely repulsive for a public figure to change his or her religious faith to escape the indictment for bigamy? (Try to figure out this person, who is often given media exposure.)
"There is variety of views among members of the court unmatched in any other course of constitutional adjudication," said Justice John Marshall Harlan in a "censorship" case involving a Dallas (Texas) newspaper.
The constitutional rights of the "commerce in ideas" are not intended to be caught in the net of obscenity as this is one constraint in the conduit to express freely the significance of the art-inherent in every living individual.
If the protestors are really bent to have their ideas adapted, why not lobby in Congress to pass a law requiring all women to use the Muslim attire with only their eyes to be seen?
The struggle for artistic freedom is part of the freedom of expression and any attempt to suppress the same would lead gradually to the curtailment of other freedoms. It would not be surprising if the case would boost the sales of the said magazines.
It-the complaint-is a good marketing pitch for these publications.
