Senate Bill No. 2464: 'A crime against Philippine culture'

There has been some commotion amidst the local online art communities lately about Senate Bill No. 2464, the Anti-Obscenity and Pornography Act of 2008. Introduced by Senator Manny Villar, the bill is apparently pending for approval. Before any approving, the Senate should know that the bill’s approval means one of the worst crimes against Philippine culture. It is repressive to the arts with its aims to criminalize “obscene” and “pornographic” acts regardless of intention. No room for social commentary. No room for creative expression. Nothing.

The intentions of the bill are respectable: “It is the policy of the State to give special value to the dignity of every human person and to promote and safeguard its integrity and the moral, spiritual and social well-being of its citizenry, especially the youth in general and women in particular, from the pernicious effects of obscenity and pornography.” Sexual offenses to women and to children are indeed serious issues and the propagation of such material that could increase the risk of sexual crimes is something that must be considered. But the bill impinges on the creative right of artists to express themselves with its ridiculous definitions.

The Bill

Obscene is defined in the Act as “anything that is indecent or offensive or contrary to good customs or religious beliefs, principles or doctrines, or tends to corrupt or deprave the human mind, or is calculated to excite impure thoughts or arouse prurient interest, or violates the proprieties of language and human behavior, regardless of the motive of the producer, printer, publisher, writer, importer, seller, distributor or exhibitor.” Examples listed under this include, but apparently are not limited to: (1) showing, depicting or describing sexual acts (2) showing, depicting or describing human sexual organs or the female breasts; (3) showing, depicting or describing completely nude human bodies; (4) describing erotic reactions, feelings or experiences on sexual acts; or (5) performing live sexual acts of whatever form.

The definition of obscene allows for a completely subjective opinion and the problem is whose opinion is it that matters? Who gets to decide and judge what is indecent, offensive, contrary to good customs or religious beliefs, principles, or doctrines, or corrupting or depraving the human mind? Is it going to boil down to one person’s beliefs in court even if it differs from the beliefs of the “offender”? Or shall it be whatever the majority thinks? What majority, though? The bill lists a number of government agencies responsible for the bill’s implementation but are they in the position to act as expert and critic of good customs or what corrupts or depraves the human mind?

Pornographic or pornography is defined in the bill as “objects or subject 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 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.”

The definition of pornography, as with the definition of obscene, paradoxically has both “calculated” and “regardless of the motive.” One can’t say that the author’s material was “calculated” to excite, stimulate or arouse such “impure” thoughts without referring to his or her motive or intent. Again, this is unfairly biased towards the party that gets aroused from such material, which basically becomes reduced to individual preferences.

Three of the six punishable acts under the law involve mass media. These are (1) producing, printing, showing, exhibiting, importing, selling, advertising or distributing obscene or pornographic materials in all forms of mass media; (2) causing the showing or exhibition, distributing or the printing, publication or advertising, or the selling of obscene of pornographic materials in all forms of mass media; and (3) performing, demonstrating, acting or exhibiting any obscene or pornographic act in any form of mass media. Mass media is defined in the act as “film, print, broadcast, electronic and outdoor media including, but not limited to, Internet, newspapers, tabloids, magazines, newsletters, books, comic books, billboards, calendars, posters, optical discs, magnetic media, future technologies, and the like.” Not only does this encompass a wide range but the “including, but not limited to” part seems to give a rather large allowance for maneuvering in finding material in whatever format punishable.

The other punishable acts include performing, or allowing the performance of, live sex or live sexual act in public, public places or any place open to public viewing; writing any obscene or pornographic article in any print or electronic medium; and showing, exhibiting, selling, or distributing obscene or pornographic movies in whatever format, whether produced in the Philippines or abroad, in any restaurant, club or other places open to the public, including private buildings, places or houses where the viewers are not limited to them owners thereof and the members of his family. The latter means one can still enjoy pornography but in the privacy of his or her own home (though it can’t be shared with friends or other outsiders, relatives are apparently okay).

To say that this bill has no objective to include or pursue such censorship in the arts is untrue. It includes paintings, drawings and illustrations, which are predominant formats in the visual arts, and includes outright the art form of literature in its definition of materials covered under the act. Other materials covered are films, television shows, photographs, music, games, advertisements, writings, or narratives.

Punishable Acts are Punishing Who?

So what does this mean for the Philippine art scene?

Under this act, many artworks in exhibitions, even conservative ones, could be deemed obscene or pornographic (National Artist Fernando Amorsolo’s paintings featuring nude maidens immediately come to mind), yet their inclusion in exhibitions may not necessarily be a punishable act. As long as the still images of “obscene” or “pornographic” artworks are not produced in mass media, there doesn’t seem to be anything that the artists or exhibiting institutions can be punished for.

It probably means though that museums, galleries and other art-affiliated institutions cannot use any such images for invitations or exhibition catalogues, which is preposterous because it is next to impossible to fulfill educational roles and further scholarship without documentation or printed material on the artworks. Even if the image is censored, the text could not even describe the image as all text is also apparently subjugated under the act and could merit punishment for even simply describing a nude body.

“Obscene” or “pornographic” artworks using film or video are going to precariously hang under the Act. Take Jevijoe Vitug’s video work “Classical Scandal” (2006), featuring clips of found homemade porn juxtaposed with Philippine classical paintings, a commentary on, as the artist provided in a statement, “the dividing line between pornography and fine art, between naked and nude… (questioning) the notion of originality and legality as well as mass production and public consumption.” The artist and those in the institution responsible for the exhibition of such a work could, under the bill, be slapped with heavy fines and even jail time. But why? Is the work really about and created for titillating the viewer? Or, like a lot of contemporary art, isn’t it an informed endeavor based on social and (art) historical observations which become an impetus to thinking of a confluence of ideas? Why should any artist, should he or she choose to use the human body (yes, even nude ones) to articulate an idea, be punished for doing so?

Whatever the kind of art (visual arts, literature, dance, theater, film, etc.), it is only natural that some works are going to use and refer to the body. Human beings are embodied beings and this includes having sexual organs and experiences of sexual acts. To pretend otherwise by censoring any text or image with allusions to this is a foolish pretension. The bill poses that Philippine society is too immature to receive even just an illustrated depiction of a woman’s breasts. While the bill’s immediate implications seem to be to the media and arts communities, the Anti-Obscenity and Pornography Act of 2008 is more an affront to Philippine society. It indicates that the nation is restrictive and closed-minded. The bill is less about human decency and more about catering to the elite group of the easily offended.

 (To be concluded)

* * *

The second part of the article next week includes the discussion “Is art above the law?” To read the full bill, download it from the Senate website at http://www.senate.gov.ph/lis/bill_res.aspx?congress=14&q=SBN-2464.

The author may be e-mailed at letterstolisa@gmail.com. Visit her blog of art writings at http://writelisawrite.blogspot.com.