Truemors
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
Philippines -- Local versions of FHM, Maxim, Playboy and four other publications sued for pornography
Share:
by jayr_patron | July 13, 2008 at 10:40 pm
3119 views | 1 Recommendation | 6 comments
Issue raises concern for minors and women, stirs debate about country's freedom of publication.
Manila, Philippines - Manila Representative Bienvenido Abante led a group of pastors in filing charges against seven publications for grave scandal and obscene publication.
Abante sued FHM, Maxim, Playboy Philippines, Playhouse, and tabloids Sagad, Hataw and Baliktaran Toro, also in violation of Manila’s anti-pornography city ordinance no. 7780, which Abante authored when he was a councilor in 1993.
The complaint said the publications, from September 2007 to July 2008, showed "obscene and erotic pictures/poses that show, depict or describe nude or semi-nude bodies, sexual acts, sexual intercourse [and] private parts, with no educational, artistic value, intended to draw lust and arouse prurient interest."
Abante said they hoped to put a stop to the magazines and tabloids for the benefit of minors they said are corrupted by the publications.
The issue opens debate on what is morally and legally acceptable as "art form", which publications claim as the basis for their "partial nudity" content.
Early this morning on radio show, "Good times with Moe" at Magic 89.9FM, DJ Moe Twister has mentioned that "it is ok to have these contents because they are sold and not freely available to the public."
According to Abante, the time has come to put a stop to indecent content in the country's magazines and tabloids, admitting that the activity has remained unchecked for quite some time.
A couple of weeks ago, Rogue magazine's front cover of model Joey Mead wearing only a paint of the Philippine flag as "underwear" caused controversy amongst nationalists, saying that the magazine had violated Republic Act. 8491 or the Flag and Heraldic Code of the Philippines.
Opinion: Speaking as a conservative with regards to this issue, I believe that these publications have come close to borderline pornography. Especially with FHM Philippines, comparing the first issues with ones from the last couple of years, the photos have become more raunchy, more pornographique, and less of an art. Probably the novelty has gone with the rise of sexy-themed publications...and with other publications riding along with the FHM wave.
I am ok with these types of magazines, in fact, I have a monthly subscription (which comes to my doorstep for free actually...I won't get one if I had to pay). But the contents, I notice, have changed which is becoming a cause of concern for me about its accessibility and availability to minors.
What is NowPublic?
NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.
Crowd Power
Most Recommended Stories in Culture
Recommendations (1)
Anonymous user
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (6)
at 23:17 on July 13th, 2008
Haha! It cannot be more of an art when the thing that's easily surfacing behind the covers of these magazines and the contents are women in sexy, shameless poses. What a waste of money just to degrade women.
Commerce is at the heart of these capitalists and businesspeople. Commerce is money. The more popular the celebrities or more vulgar one magazine cover gives, the more people will patronize and buy it. Art is not about capitalism. And definitely not like that. So where is art then?
at 23:19 on July 13th, 2008
Hi jayr_patron,
I hope you don't get me wrong on this. But I think it is also no longer an issue if one is conservative or not, but the main point here is that no matter how you conceal or make literary writers or contributors be the front for these publications, it cannot remove the fact that these publications are aiming to sell flesh. Sexy or soft porn, no matter the euphemisms used, soft or hard pornography is STILL pornography.
at 23:29 on July 13th, 2008
Oh that is fine. I reckon giving out my political and social inclination makes for a better understanding of my opinion, where I stand in the issue. Other than that, you are correct...pornography is still pornography, morally speaking. But we also have to take in to account the definition of terms under the law, what constitutes pornography, etc. I think these publications are taking advantage of loopholes in the law.
at 00:02 on July 14th, 2008
Oh, yes loopholes. Loopholes pepper our very justice system. And I cannot but agree more to your statement.
at 13:49 on January 1st, 2009
It's definitely demeaning. No offense but you could not expect better form the capitalist countries that claim "women's rights" yet make it okay to call women names in rap songs and show them naked as nothing but body parts in magazines. I mean these magazines have no moral value. Something is only right if it is substantial. How is a naked woman being informative. These 22 year models who are desperate for a career sometimes do anything to get exposure. It's pretty pathetic no offense. It's definitely immoral I don't care how "times have changed." In times of slavery ppl thought that was okay because everyone thought slavery was okay but that didn't make it morally right. Same here.....though many argue it's not killing someone....what's right should never be defined in terms of what's wrong. Don't ask what's wrong with it...but questions what's right with it? If there are reason topless women are "right."....I didn't think so. lol. These pics are solely for sex and teach mean to value women for one thing. Men are supposed to respect women not treat them as sex objects and body parts.
at 13:49 on January 1st, 2009
It's definitely demeaning. No offense but you could not expect better form the capitalist countries that claim "women's rights" yet make it okay to call women names in rap songs and show them naked as nothing but body parts in magazines. I mean these magazines have no moral value. Something is only right if it is substantial. How is a naked woman being informative. These 22 year models who are desperate for a career sometimes do anything to get exposure. It's pretty pathetic no offense. It's definitely immoral I don't care how "times have changed." In times of slavery ppl thought that was okay because everyone thought slavery was okay but that didn't make it morally right. Same here.....though many argue it's not killing someone....what's right should never be defined in terms of what's wrong. Don't ask what's wrong with it...but questions what's right with it? If there are reason topless women are "right."....I didn't think so. lol. These pics are solely for sex and teach mean to value women for one thing. Men are supposed to respect women not treat them as sex objects and body parts.