legislating pornography

we are about to legislate what is "pornography", "obscene", "indecent".

no one is against it.  but right now, my personal beat is that it's really hard to legislate the definition of these terms.  even the Supreme Court refuses to make their own definitions, and only decides on pornography issues on a case to case basis.

there are 4 bills pending before the committee on public information, and another bill pending with the committee on revision of laws.  by mid-next week, we hope to pass the porno bill at the committee level. 

sana hindi half-baked.  sana mag-participate ng maayos ang mga stakeholders whom we invited to the technical working group meetings, kahit hindi sila nag-attend sa initial deliberation kanina.  yung baywalk bodies, nag-attend, sabi nila hindi pornographic or obscene or indecent ang ginagawa nila.  (alangan naman... haha.)

sabi nga ng mga abogado galing sa MTRCB, KBP at AdBoard, what is "pornographic", "obscene" or "indecent" will depend on the medium being used and contemporary Filipino values.  use the Miller v California test.  but that begs the question, kasi case to case basis nga e.

kung laging "it will depend," wag na nga i-legislate yan.  hayaan na natin ang PNP na ilusot lahat sa Art. 201 of the Revised Penal Code, o i-lusot ng media at mga defense lawyers nila sa "art."

Cong. Abante (holding a copy of RedHot magazine, showing a sexy hunk in briefs, with a really erect manhood):  Ikaw, Mr. De Guzman (gay manager ng Baywalk Bodies), tingin mo pornographic ito?
Mr. De Guzman:  Your Honor, hindi po.  That's art.
Cong. Abante:  Ah... So sinasabi mo na ang picture na to, parang Oblation sa UP?
Mr. De Guzman:  Ay, your Honor, hindi po yan parang Oblation.  Pero artistic po sila pareho.

ayos.