If you intresting in sport buy steroids you find place where you can find information about steroids

The Poor Need Sex Videos

I don’t get it anymore these days, the almost laughable way that our Senators, like Bong Revillas himself, can lose such focus, and meander away towards issues as if they truly were of national importance.  When the national consciousness has gone towards a certain sex video, then indeed we have kicked the can of responsibility to a later date, because it has become all too easy to focus on the trivial and the unimportant, because indeed, politicians probably realize the extent of the job needed to tackle the most dire issue of poverty.  And when faced with such tremendous challenges, they run away, turn to the internet, and find the gold mine that has been the Halili Kho sex scandal.  What a disgrace our leaders still continue to be.  I say “still” because it seems this has been the status quo for quite some time.

When a third of our people live under poverty, we would think that this would still be the key focus of our “trusted” senators.

Poverty is an all too complex problem, and it needs a proper diagnosis, one that is rooted in differential diagnosis because indeed it has too many parts that contribute to it.  So many individuals claim that poverty is a simple problem, but this is indeed an oxymoronic statement, because if it were so simple, it would have been solved already.  The fact, that the solution to poverty involves almost all sectors of society, every public and private sector, gives us

all a glimpse as to why our focus should never meander for even a short amount of time, towards trivial matters, even if trivial matters seem important on the surface, we must be able to discern, and decide on the important things in life.

The complexity of poverty touches on many aspects such as culture, governance, fiscal policy, as well as economic policy.  It involves geography and even geopolitics.  Such a great challenge deserves our undivided attention.

The End of Poverty, the book by the acclaimed economist and author Jeffrey Sachs indeed points to the need for policy makers, politicians, and leaders to realize the extent of the problem, the multi-faceted nature of poverty, and how an entire government must be engaged and have resolve for it to continually enact policies, bills, and laws that address the very nature of poverty.

And when we allow ourselves to be reactionary instead of proactive, especially when it comes to the issues that truly matter for our nation, we no doubt also contribute to the stagnation, or even decline of this end of poverty that everyone should be working towards.  Because it is this end of poverty, this end of injustice, that will truly bring a brighter future to our people and for our nation.

Sex sells, but these days, if the poor is our focus, as it should be, maybe our only recourse, and our only advice is maybe they too should make their own sex videos, maybe then they can get a little indignation coming from Senator Bong Revilla himself.

Popularity: 11% [?]

Comments

  1. BrianB says:

    The problem is that people still blame the Church for preventing a population program. Church is on other countries too doing the same thing but why are there population programs in most Catholic countries. The answer is our paranoid, prudish and hypocritical politicians.

    • myrrh says:

      We must be thankful we become Christians. What is inculcated into our minds since childhood must be practiced to the end. Who then be rewarded the crown of life and nobody is loser? Let them who serve the world be compromised and then lost the opportunity to live the next citizenry. Whoever the greatest is the servant. The remunerations allotted and the honorable call are just material reward to the work well done but the life dedicated is much honoring when a servant forgets himself for the people. I wish to suggest to lessen the remunerations of elected officials, the development funds must be handled by concern agency, and the filing of candidacy be determined by national election registrar assigned to qualify by drug test, assets and liabilities documents and psychological or psychiatric test. It is time to make sense in every act before it can be an omission or commission liability of a steward. Building a nation is a building of God’s Kingdom on earth. Let us show that Christians are God’s Stewards of His Kingdom.

  2. UP n grad says:

    The global economic downturn has pulled the Philippines down to its slowest growth in a decade.

    The latest statistics : in the first quarter, the Philippine economy, measured in terms of its gross domestic product [GDP], posted an annual growth of 0.4 percent in real terms compared to its growth target of between 3.1 and 4.1 percent for the full year.

    Population grows at 2.1% per year.

    Conclusion: Pinas is getting poorer (per-capita income becomes lower) and will get even worse if the poor watching Halili-sex-video gets “motivated” to procreate at a faster rate.
    ————
    Related topics: (1) my expectation is that condo-houses in Makati. Quezon City, Taguig (and Davao, other places) will continue to be under pressure thru mid-2010.

    (2) The country can definitely use the stimulus of 2010-elections “free-money” vote-buying.

    • bakedmak says:

      why the hell do we have to procreate if we can allow women have abortion.
      we’re like bacterias consuming this planet, we shouldn’t be worried about a blood from a womb being flushed out. they are too smart to lead a country but not smart enough to make an apparatus/meds helping the women have a safe abortion without any form of guilt and humiliation.
      we must enjoy watching PORN and give ourselves pleasures.
      body-pleasure not procreation bitches!

  3. we should just ignore the scandal altogether. let’s not blog about it. let’s not blog about how we hate that it is taking over the national consciousness. is it not ironic that as we express our disgust online over the general public’s preoccupation with the scandal we are also contributing to the noise around it.

    let’s just ignore it and not say a word about it. it would also be good if we not even use the names of all the personalities involved as keywoards, tags, title words etc.

  4. Joe America says:

    BrianB, when has the church called for birthing restraint? They follow, not lead.

    Joe

  5. Aldebaran says:

    BrianB…
    The people aren’t the problem. The influence of the church and its involvement in politics are the factors why our country can’t make laws for population programs.

    Our politicians needs popularity. Let’s face it. However, I think they shouldn’t be dependent on the stand of the church. The state,represented by our politician, should be amoral, especially in these times when the economy is in trouble.

    Haha!

  6. blackshama Blackshama says:

    The conyos need sex videos too. What do you think of this class? That they are pure and holy?

    Who else could have driven dvd prices of this trashy video through the roof?

  7. Primer C. Pagunuran Primer says:

    The whole Senate circus is an aweful waste of taxpayer’s money. Will anyone refresh our memory just how much a day in the Senate cost? A week? A month?

    Nick timely reminds us to stick to the knitting. Indeed, the issue of poverty is far more important to confront than such an exercise in futility as attempting to legislate against sex, sex videos, voyeurism and all.

    Truly, there is need to form a consortium in a way that we will confront poverty from a multi-displinary approach. We need economists, social philosophers, theologians, statisticians, ethicists, environmentalists, technologists to discuss on the topic. But, can we, form a pool of experts given the intellectual tradition that dominates this site?

    Let it be a cognitive map – discussion should be fruitful.

    • BongV BongV says:

      Primer:

      Rather than reinvent the wheel – am inclined to build on the work and body of knowledge that has already been ongoing while PI-based pundits where gorging in an orgy of triviality. And who upon missing the boat, wants a remedial class :D

      Background

      The eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) – which range from halving extreme poverty to halting the spread of HIV/AIDS and providing universal primary education, all by the target date of 2015 – form a blueprint agreed to by all the world’s countries and all the world’s leading development institutions. They have galvanized unprecedented efforts to meet the needs of the world’s poorest.

      Millennium Summit

      In September 2000, building upon a decade of major United Nations conferences and summits, world leaders came together at United Nations Headquarters in New York to adopt the United Nations Millennium Declaration, committing their nations to a new global partnership to reduce extreme poverty and setting out a series of time-bound targets – with a deadline of 2015 – that have become known as the Millennium Development Goals.
      2005 World Summit

      The 2005 World Summit, held from 14 to 16 September at United Nations Headquarters in New York, brought together more than 170 Heads of State and Government. It was a once-in-a-generation opportunity to take bold decisions in the areas of development, security, human rights and reform of the United Nations. The agenda was based on an achievable set of proposals outlined in March 2005 by Secretary- General Kofi Annan in his report “In Larger Freedom”.
      UN Millennium Project

      The Millennium Project was commissioned by the United Nations Secretary-General in 2002 to develop a concrete action plan for the world to achieve the Millennium Development Goals and to reverse the grinding poverty, hunger and disease affecting billions of people. In 2005, the independent advisory body headed by Professor Jeffrey Sachs, presented its final recommendations to the Secretary-General in a synthesis volume “Investing in Development: A Practical Plan to Achieve the Millennium Development Goals.”

      “Eradicating extreme poverty continues to be one of the main challenges of our time, and is a major concern of the international community. Ending this scourge will require the combined efforts of all, governments, civil society organizations and the private sector, in the context of a stronger and more effective global partnership for development. The Millennium Development Goals set timebound targets, by which progress in reducing income poverty, hunger, disease, lack of adequate shelter and exclusion — while promoting gender equality, health, education and environmental sustainability — can be measured. They also embody basic human rights — the rights of each person on the planet to health, education, shelter and security. The Goals are ambitious but feasible and, together with the comprehensive United Nations development agenda, set the course for the world’s efforts to alleviate extreme poverty by 2015. ”

      United Nations Secretary-General BAN Ki-moon

      Ang lagay eh, other countries are already in execution, PInas is still stuck in balitaktakan… talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk all talk :lol:

      • Nick says:

        no laughing matter though Bong, and yes, this is a good start, a great deal of orgs have already laid the foundation for this.. I’m glad you also mention MDG.. it’s important that our readers thoroughly understand that the world has already set benchmarks in the fight against poverty..

      • BongV BongV says:

        Nick:

        I agree it is no laughing matter.

        But I don’t wanna be a sourpuss either.

        I choose to laugh, have fun, take time to smell the flowers, and get to the destination unruffled and on time.

        I think MDG poses a very exciting challenge – we can be THE first generation to end poverty – but we gotta work for it – http://www.endpoverty2015.org/

      • jcc says:

        as one pundit said: we have been fighting poverty since time immemorial, and poverty always win.

      • BongV BongV says:

        that’s because folks have been doing the the same age-old things – and expect different results

    • BongV BongV says:

      The whole Senate circus is an aweful waste of taxpayer’s money. Will anyone refresh our memory just how much a day in the Senate cost? A week? A month?

      Remember the forwarded emails – MASARAP ANG MAGING SENADOR.

      Miriam Defensor Santiago was featured in Correspondents last week. Maganda rin naman ang naidudulot ng pagiging prangka ni Senador Miriam Defensor-Santiago. Ayon kay Santiago, marami ang tumatak-bong Senador dahil sa laki ng budget na ibinibigay sa kanila kada buwan.

      Lumalabas na P35,000 suweldo nila kada buwan ay pakitang-tao lang sa milyun-milyong budget ng bawat senador. Kada buwan ay may Fixed Monthly Budget ang bawat Senador ng humigit-kumulang P2 Milyon.

      Sa opisina pa lang nila ay humigit-kumulang P500,000 ang budget nila sa Maintenance and Operating Expenses (Rental, Utilities, Supplies at Domestic Travels) at P500,000 para sa Staff at Personal expenses. Kaya para makatipid ang ibang Senador, kaunti lang ang staff na kinukuha nila. Nagtataka ka pa kung bakit mayroong mga Ghost Employee?

      Bukod diyan, may P760,000 allowance pa sila kada buwan para naman sa Foreign Travel. At ang masakit pa nito, hindi na kailngan i-liquidate ang mga resibo ng mga gastusin ‘yan kundi Certification lang ang Requirement.

      Heto pa, lahat sila ay Chairman ng mg Komite sa Senado. Ang Committee Chairman ay tumatanggap din ng budget na sinlaki ng tinatanggap ng mga Senador na humigit-kumulang P1 Milyon din! Hindi sila mawawalan ng Komite dahil 24 lang ang ating mga Senador at 37 naman ang Committee sa Senado. There’s food for everybody ‘ika nga! Lumalabas na doble ang kanilang benepesiyo at kita kapag sila ay nabiyayaan ng Committee Chairmanship.

      Sa P200 milyon na Budget para sa Pork Barrel ng mga Senador bawat taon, awtomatikong may 10% na S.O.P. o kita ng Senador na P20 milyon. Ito ang porsiyento na ibinibigay ng mga kontratista sa mga Senador na nagbibigay sa kanila ng mga Infrastructure at Livelihood Project.

      Bago matapos ang termino ng isang Senador, kumita na siya ng P100 milyon sa Pork Barrel pa lang. Yung ibang Senador mas gahaman, hindi lang 10% kundi 20 – 30% ang komisyon hinihingi sa mga kontratista.

      Pansinin niyo na lang ang pagbabago ng buhay ng ilan sa ating mga Senador simula nang manungkulan sa puwesto. Kung dati ay simple lang ang kanilang pamumuhay ngayon ay nakatira na sila sa mga eksklusibong subdivision, maraming bahay sa Pilipinas at abroad at mahigit lima ang sasakyan.

      Ngayon nagtataka ka pa ba kung bakit gumagastos ng daan-daang milyong piso ang mga Senador sa kampanya para sa isang posisyon na P35,000 lang ang suweldo kada buwan? Bawing-bawi pala ang gastos kapag naupo na!

      ANG SARAP MAGING SENADOR!!!

      AT MASARAP RIN MAGING PRESIDENTE :D

    • myrrh says:

      If I were a leader to this poor country, I need the experts gather them and every field must have its own group to research the productivity using the natural resources in maximizing production to compete in international trade. Each country has a unique contribution to each other to balance the world trade. It should not only a whole world demanded fuel from desert lands are best supplier. The supply has its duration that should be replaced before it is fully consumed.

  8. benign0 says:

    Well, somebody voted those bozos into office…

  9. benign0 says:

    The complexity of poverty touches on many aspects such as culture, governance, fiscal policy, as well as economic policy. It involves geography and even geopolitics. Such a great challenge deserves our undivided attention.

    Guess what: Thinking is hard work. So it’s no surprise that people would rather focus on things that do not require it.

    If you were a politician, why focus on the things that truly matter (but do not capture the imagination of vacuous minds) when simply getting some face time in some half-arsed “congressional inquiry” delivers more value to your political agenda?

    It’s simple, really™ — though not for the small-minded.

  10. jcc says:

    I don’t know about you guys, but if these sex videos are being distributed on the sidewalks and online, the probability that they can get into the hands of young kids is there. Information technology is a great tool for kids looking for information online for school purposes. Imagine if those rubbish would freely appear while your minor kids are surfing for information.

    Or get this cue from the congressional inquiry which claimed that these sex videos are being used to “blackmail” the girls for money by a syndicate.

    There should be stiffer laws to address pornography and voyeurism.

    • BongV BongV says:

      Sex videos have been sold in the Philippines for quite some time now. Starting from the videotape rental tores that sell the tapes “under the table”. And more recently, pirated DVDs from Hong Kong, wholesale distribution by chinoys, retail distribution by resellers.

      Kho-Halili is just another addition to the genre. The complications being that, while it was consensual sex:
      1. the video was taken without consent of Halili
      2. the privacy of both Kho and Halili was violated

      I don’t have any information if both #1 and #2 have associated penalties under the law.

      From what I have seen, the US approach to pornography has been one of regulation instead of outright ban on sale primarily due to the First Amendment (freedom of expression).

      On the matter of online porn, there are ways to restrict access – and parents need to be directly involved – check out the Family Online Safety Institute web sute

  11. jcc says:

    The IQ Mutawwa is on at it again. Regulation and outright ban is on the same side of the coin. Pornography is banned in the U.S. because it is not a protected free speech embraced in the First Amendment. Proliferation of pornography in the U.S. is a question of laxity in the prosecution, and not due to first amendment concerns.

    • BongV BongV says:

      From – http://www.answers.com/topic/unprotected-speech

      Unprotected Speech

      US Supreme Court: Unprotected Speech

      Home > Library > Law & Legal Issues > US Supreme Court

      The Supreme Court has fashioned First Amendment doctrine around a “free‐speech principle.” This principle has two fundamental tenets: first, that free speech serves special and significant constitutional purposes and, second, that the First Amendment should not protect all speech but only speech of a certain quality. The free‐speech principle reflects a tension between two cardinal values in our constitutional system: liberalism and democracy. Liberal values stress individual liberty and antipaternalism, and beckon the Court to protect expression that does not constitute substantial direct harm to society, while democratic norms endorse the right of the majority to enact value judgments that limit liberty. The free‐speech principle applies liberal standards to “protected” expression but is more tolerant of democratic controls in the regulation of “unprotected” expression.

      Defenders argue that free speech furthers the search for objective truth, buttresses an open “marketplace of ideas” that assists temporary majorities in defining truth for themselves, promotes individual self‐realization, contributes to the practice of self‐government, and helps check government abuse.

      Though each of these theories has influenced the Supreme Court, it has relied mainly on the rationale developed in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942). Chaplinsky involved the constitutionality of punishing fighting words, performative epithets designed to harm emotionally or to trigger a hostile reaction. In upholding Chaplinsky’s conviction for swearing at a police officer, Justice Frank Murphy wrote that lewdness, obscenity, libel, profanity, and fighting words are unprotected expression because “such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality” (p. 572).

      On the one hand, speech that falls within Chaplinsky’s category of protected expression is protected by the liberal content‐neutrality rule, which stipulates that “government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content” (Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, 1972, pp 95–96). Nor may government restrict speech because of a paternalistic fear that the speech might have undesirable long‐range consequences. Abridgment is permissible only if it satisfies the test of strict scrutiny: that is, it must be necessary to achieve a “compelling” state interest. On the other hand, government may prohibit unprotected expression simply by showing that the restriction is reasonably related to a legitimate government objective.

      The most important illustration of the liberal standards governing protected expression is the Supreme Court’s treatment of political speech that advocates lawless action. The 1969 case of Brandenburg v. Ohio held that such advocacy is punishable only if it “is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action” (p. 447). This direct incitement test is clearer and more objective than the clear and present danger test that preceded it in determining the boundaries of advocacy speech (Schenck v. United States, 1919).

      Brandenburg’s liberal standard does not apply to unprotected speech such as libel, obscenity, and fighting words. The Court’s treatment of these exceptions, however, has grown more liberal in recent decades. Chaplinsky’s two‐level speech theory favored rational, civil discourse over indecent or highly provocative expression. It assumed that sufficient social consensus existed concerning the nature of the moral order. These tenets and assumptions were challenged when the Court got down to the business of applying the two‐level test in an environment of rapid political and cultural transformation in the 1960s and 1970s.

      Fighting Words

      The fare of the fighting‐words exception signifies the modern liberalization of free‐speech doctrine. In the 1960s, the Court ruled that the threats of hostile audiences (“hecklers’ vetoes”) could not justify the suppression of speech unless police have no other way to maintain order (Edwards v. South Carolina, 1963). The heckler’s veto doctrine weakened the rationale for fighting words, which had made intentionally provocative speech subject to punishment. The Court took a further step in this direction in Cohen v. California (1971), reversing the conviction of a young man for violating California’s disturbance of the peace statute. Cohen had walked through a Los Angeles courthouse wearing a jacket with the words “Fuck the Draft” emblazoned on its back. The case limited the fighting words doctrine to situations in which a violent reaction is likely to be incited by the speech. More broadly, Cohen also lowered the threshold of protected expression in general by acknowledging that the “emotive function” of speech is important, not just speech’s “cognitive content” (pp. 25–26).

      In 1992, the Court created an important new rationale limiting the manner in which governments may restrict fighting words or any other expression within an “unprotected” category. R.A.V. (the initials of a juvenile) had been convicted of violating St. Paul’s new hate speech ordinance by burning a cross in front of the home of an African‐American family. The ordinance prohibited only a limited class of fighting words, those that arouse “anger, alarm, or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, or gender.” R.A.V.’s speech act could have been properly punished under a general fighting words or threat law. But singling out only these particular forms of fighting words or threats for prohibition meant that St. Paul had treated certain subjects differently from others in terms of proscription. According to a majority of the Court, such favoritism amounted to viewpoint discrimination (R.A.V. v. St. Paul). The state may single out a limited subclass of unprotected speech for proscription only if the rationale for the so‐called underinclusion is based on the very same reason that the entire class of speech is proscribable in the first place. Applying this logic in 2003, the Court upheld a Virginia statute that prohibited the burning of a cross with the intent of intimidating a person or group. Threats are unprotected speech because they constitute intimidation, so singling out one of the most intimidating forms of threats for proscription does not constitute viewpoint discrimination.

      Obscenity

      The first explicit constitutional test for obscenity arose in Roth v. United States (1957). The Court ruled that the First Amendment does not protect material that is predominantly “prurient” (lascivious or impure) according to community standards because such material harms moral values concerning sexuality and is not conducive to the rational exposition of ideas (p. 484). But the Court developed a considerably more liberal test in the context of changes in sexual mores in the 1960s. Materials some considered obscene merited constitutional protection if they possessed any plausible redeeming social value (A Book Named John Cleland’s “Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure” v. Massachusetts, 1966) or were not “patently offensive” to community standards. *Obscenity remained unprotected speech under the First Amendment, but little was held to be obscene.

      As the market in sexually explicit materials exploded after Memoirs, a divided Burger Court attempted to provide more leeway for obscenity prosecutions in Miller v. California (1973). Under Miller, prurient and “patently offensive” sexual material is obscene unless it possesses “serious literary, artistic political, or scientific value” (p. 24). The “utterly without redeeming social importance” test was discarded. But Miller was no major counterrevolution. Its obscenity test boiled down to “hard core” pornography, and its standards have proved to be as unenforceable as those of Memoirs.

      Libel

      Although it distorts the “exposition of ideas,” libel may also be the unintended by‐product of an honest inquiry. Consequently, in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), a case involving a suit brought by the Montgomery, Alabama, police commissioner against the Times for publishing a libelous advertisement by civil rights groups, the Supreme Court extended unprecedented constitutional protection to libelous speech. Alabama law embodied the traditional approach to libel: if the material was defamatory, strict liability prevailed, truth being the only defense. But the Court unanimously ruled that the First Amendment shields the press from liability for defaming a “public official” unless the victim can show by “convincing clarity” that the libel was made with actual malice, that is, with “knowledge” of falsehood or “reckless disregard of whether it was false or not” (p. 280). Few plaintiffs can meet this standard. Sullivan thus safeguarded the “breathing space” that facilitates honest but erroneous criticism of the government, the essence of the self‐government function of speech (p. 278).

      Libel doctrine has followed a self‐government logic: the more public the issue or the person libeled, the greater the protection accorded the press. The Sullivan test applies to libels of “public officials”; to governmental employees who possess “substantial control over governmental affairs” (Rosenblatt v. Baer, 1966, p. 85); and to “public figures,” those who enjoy positions of “persuasive power and influence” (Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 1974, p. 345). Private figures may recover damages more easily (Gertz), especially if the matter at issue is “not a matter of public concern” (Dun and Bradstreet v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 1985).

      Because a balance must be struck between the community’s protection of individual reputation and First Amendment values, these distinctions appear to make analytical sense. But uncertainties similar to those of obscenity law have arisen. First, the Court has not adequately defined what constitutes a “matter of public concern,” and its treatment of “public figures” has become somewhat arbitrary, suggesting a desire to restrict the domain covered by Sullivan (e.g., Time, Inc. v. Firestone, 1976). And the skyrocketing costs of libel defenses have made Sullivan’s protections somewhat less meaningful, as the mere threat of a lawsuit now looms as ominously as the remote possibility of an unfavorable jury decision.

      Quasi‐Protected Speech and New Categories

      New vexing questions concerning free speech have sprouted up over the last quarter century, causing the balance between liberal and democratic principles to become increasingly indeterminate in some domains. In response, the Court has created new intermediate categories of protection, rendering the quality of the free‐speech principle less distinct. For example, the Court has had to wrestle with the First Amendment implications of commercial speech and electoral speech, as well as with the problems posed by the rise of child pornography and such low‐quality speech as nonobscene pornography or “indecent” expression. In addressing the latter cases, the Court has had to deal with such new media as cable television and the Internet.

      Applying the traditionally less protective standard for expression in broadcast mediums, the Court has upheld a Federal Communications Commission rule limiting the times of day that nonobscene “indecent expression” may be broadcast on the radio (FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 1978). The Court has also allowed communities to restrictively zone establishments that provide nonobscene pornography (Renton v. Playtime Theatres, 1986), and has supported the right of communities to require nude dancers to wear “pasties” and “G‐strings” in bars and night clubs (Erie v. Pap’s A.M., 2000). These cases represented quasi‐protection of expression, as they involved regulations and limitations, not outright prohibitions.

      In New York v. Ferber (1982), however, the Court created a new exception to free speech when it unanimously ruled that states may completely ban the making and marketing of child pornography because of the harm such pornography inflicts on the minors who are involved in its making. New York defined child pornography as “any performance which includes sexual conduct by a child under 16.” More recently, the Court had to deal with a question left unanswered by Ferber: may government prohibit the making, distribution, and possession of sexually explicit images that appear to have actual minors as subjects, but are in reality made either with adults as subjects, or with technological simulations that only appear to be actual minors (“virtual child pornography”). The harm of such “virtual” pornography lies in its potential effect on viewers, not in any damage done to minors in its production. Under the modern free speech principle, restricting expression in order to prevent the former harm is unconstitutionally paternalistic unless such expression poses an imminent danger of lawless conduct (Brandenburg). Virtual child pornography does not usually pose this type of harm, but is very troubling nonetheless.

      The Court confronted this problem in 2002, when it invalidated the federal Child Pornography Protection Act’s provision against virtual child pornography. The Court ruled that the law was vastly overbroad because it ignored the limitations of established obscenity doctrine, especially Miller’s protections of material with artistic or literary value. As written, Justice Anthony Kennedy said, the act could potentially apply to versions of Romeo and Juliet and films like Traffic and American Beauty (Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 2002, pp. 247–248). The Court will no doubt have to address revisions of this law in the near future.

      New technologies often present free speech questions, especially in the context of sexual expression. In 1996, the Court extended significant First Amendment protection to public access cable television stations in a case involving nonobscene sexual programming (Denver Area Educational Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v. FCC); and in 1997, it struck down two provisions of the federal Communications Decency Act that prohibited the knowing transmission or display of “indecent” and “patently offensive” material to anyone under eighteen. Declaring the Internet a “vast democratic fora,” the Court applied strict scrutiny and found the CDA unconstitutionally broad and vague (Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, pp. 868–869).

      Employing an antipaternalism rationale, the Court has also expanded the constitutional protection of commercial speech and advertising, especially if the advertising presents truthful information to consumers (e.g., 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, 1996). Though the Court has continued to apply a four‐part test resembling intermediate‐level scrutiny to commercial speech (Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp v. Public Service Commission, 1980), it has begun to apply this test in a manner that sometimes seems closer to strict scrutiny, at least in cases involving truthful advertising. For example, in 2001, the Court applied a very rigorous form of intermediate scrutiny in invalidating Massachusetts’s regulations that severely limited the scope of public advertising and the point‐of‐sale advertising of cigars and smokeless tobacco products (Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly). Because false and misleading advertising do not contribute to the truth function of speech, the Court has continued to allow governments to prohibit such expression.

      One area in which the Court has been increasingly more solicitous of democratic controls is the area of campaign finance. The Court has sustained congressional limitations on the amount of money that individuals and groups may contribute to candidates for federal political office (Buckley v. Valeo, 1976), and agreed that corporations and nonprofit advocacy groups may be required to make such contributions from separate segregated funds rather than from their general treasuries (e.g, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 1990; FEC v. Beaumont, 2003).

      Unless the Supreme Court decides to apply Brandenburg’s liberty principle to all forms of expression, it must assume the difficult burden of distinguishing protected from unprotected speech. Though it has expanded the sway of liberal antipaternalistic principles in recent decades, the Court’s free speech jurisprudence still accommodates certain democratic controls of speech. The distinction between protected and unprotected speech remains important, though the balance clearly favors the former.

      Bibliography

      * Kent Greenawalt, Speech, Crime, and the Uses of Language (1989).
      * Alexander Meiklejohn, The First Amendment Is an Absolute, Supreme Court Review 245–266 (1961).
      * Frederick Schauer, Free Speech: A Philosophical Enquiry (1982).
      * James Weinstein, Hate Speech, Pornography, and the Radical Attack on Free Speech Doctrine (1999)

      • Joe America says:

        Unprotected speech. Wonderful. This is a great layman’s summary of a complex legal issue. Subtitle it “The Litigation of a Freedom” as the nits to pick get smaller and more obtuse . . . the word “arcane” comes to mind . . . where’s my dictionary, the hard copy one that has not been in the hands of some “away with words” Scientologist . . .

        Joe

    • BongV BongV says:

      There’s an article about unprotected speech and pornography on http://www.answers.com/topic/unprotected-speech.

      Excerpts:

      Obscenity

      The first explicit constitutional test for obscenity arose in Roth v. United States (1957). The Court ruled that the First Amendment does not protect material that is predominantly “prurient” (lascivious or impure) according to community standards because such material harms moral values concerning sexuality and is not conducive to the rational exposition of ideas (p. 484). But the Court developed a considerably more liberal test in the context of changes in sexual mores in the 1960s. Materials some considered obscene merited constitutional protection if they possessed any plausible redeeming social value (A Book Named John Cleland’s “Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure” v. Massachusetts, 1966) or were not “patently offensive” to community standards. *Obscenity remained unprotected speech under the First Amendment, but little was held to be obscene.

      As the market in sexually explicit materials exploded after Memoirs, a divided Burger Court attempted to provide more leeway for obscenity prosecutions in Miller v. California (1973). Under Miller, prurient and “patently offensive” sexual material is obscene unless it possesses “serious literary, artistic political, or scientific value” (p. 24). The “utterly without redeeming social importance” test was discarded. But Miller was no major counterrevolution. Its obscenity test boiled down to “hard core” pornography, and its standards have proved to be as unenforceable as those of Memoirs.

      ****

      New technologies often present free speech questions, especially in the context of sexual expression. In 1996, the Court extended significant First Amendment protection to public access cable television stations in a case involving nonobscene sexual programming (Denver Area Educational Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v. FCC); and in 1997, it struck down two provisions of the federal Communications Decency Act that prohibited the knowing transmission or display of “indecent” and “patently offensive” material to anyone under eighteen. Declaring the Internet a “vast democratic fora,” the Court applied strict scrutiny and found the CDA unconstitutionally broad and vague (Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, pp. 868–869).

      ****

  12. UP n grad says:

    Benign0′s comment above may have a simple explanation.

    Well, somebody voted those bozos into office…
    — benign0

    The simple explanation — all of the choices (for congressman, senator, Malacanang) are bozos.

    And the explanation for THAT… that Pinoys tolerate low-level corruption so much these small-minded corrupts elevate their performance before the willing Pinoy eyes.

    RESULT: ——- the choices for congress, senate, Malacanang have been formed and shaped (and encouraged???) to do higher-performance corruption. All the choices are bozos because Pinoys are kunsintidor and accomplices to moderated greed.

    To DingG and other Pinoy parents… what are you teaching your kids?

  13. tasio says:

    Revilla tries to become a Hero out of the Sex Scandal. The Guy was
    a Movie Star. He tries again to play a “bida”. Poverty cannot be
    solve by these Present kinds of Leader & Politicians . Most of these People are Opportunists. Some are Family Dynasty Politicians. Some are notorious Political turncoats. They turn their loyalties
    to anyone who is in Power. When they are Elected. It is always Filipino Politics as usual. The “in” versus the “out”.

    They dont care about the Filipino people. They care about themselves.
    They pretend to care during the Election. So, we find ourselves
    Electing “Movie Stars”, who can act and pretend. Besides, they are
    good looking, also.

    Our country needs good Leaders. With True Leadership qualities. We
    can only find them by what they can offer to us of detailed Plans
    and Solutions to these problems.

    WE, who are Posting at FV Blog Website are giving good informations
    to our fellow Filipinos. Some of us manage good business. Some large,
    some small here in the U.S. and abroad. We are educated, experienced,
    and tested in finding good people for our businesses. We give our
    expertises FREE. As a way of giving back to our fellow Filipinos.

    We hope, this will work.

  14. Primer C. Pagunuran Primer says:

    Tasio,
    All that stuff could be contracted into just a single word.

    Bong,
    Where did you hide the blueprint? What you just copy-pasted reads too abstract.

    Nevertheless, you mentioned an interesting point – senator’s salary and subsidy.

    Perhaps, you can do the math. How much can a P205 million a year government appropriation can build in terms of, say:

    1. all-weather roads
    2. schools
    3. bridges
    4. day care centers
    5. technology farms
    6. et cetera

    But then again, the government would rather buy noodles, medicines, health insurance cards and insert ‘financial assistance’ to LGU, foundations, and conduit organizations – precisely to somehow siphon off.

    Even the World Bank alone as it is with other foreign organizations already saw how the whole ‘cartelization’ works. Thus, how can we make senators to account for the expenditure of P205 million, bong?

    Perhaps, get one presidentiable and show how an ordinary year looks like?

    • BongV BongV says:

      Primer:

      If the government increased revenue collection efficiency and cracked down on collusion/corrupt practices you will have more than P205 million a year. Based on emprical estimates that 30% of the appropriation is misappropriated – around P70 million of that P205M will normally go to “S.O.P.”. That leaves you with an actual pot of P130 million. As it stands, your P205 million does not stand a chance.

      When it comes to interaction with non-state entities, the money used by government is actually sourced from O.D.A. funds. the government is just a conduit for purposes of protocol. however, there has been a shift by funding agencies to deal directly with non-state agencies due to a perception that government is not up to the task.

      Second, those same infrastructure challenges were faced elsewhere, and the answer was to float bonds.

      To make the senators/elected public officials accountable, a law can be passed requiring that all disbursements made by elected public officials be published on the web and be available for scrutiny to the public.

      After all, that’s not the officials’ money – that’s TAXPAYER’S MONEY.

      To make that happen, people need to actively lobby and encourage a wider number of the public to join the discussion and press for its approval. Or as an alternative – a Freedom of Information Act.

      If people don’t work for it – lobby for it, generate awareness about it, press for its approval – then nothing will happen.

      Politicians who will jump on the bandwagon can score cookie points.

      • Karl Garcia says:

        So the villar issue would be a blessing in disguise then.
        It made the clamor of making the bicam for the finalization of the budget be made public.
        That would be a good start,the bi-cam is usually a closed door affair.

    • Karl Garcia says:

      Or as an alternative – a Freedom of Information Act.

      The thing pending in congress has something to do with state secrets.

      http://newsbreak.com.ph/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5294&Itemid=88889051

      Monday, 01 September 2008
      Digg!

      The passage of the freedom of information act, which can force government agencies to disclose state “secrets,” has hit a snag in the Senate.

      The Senate Committee on Public Information, chaired by Sen. Ramon ‘Bong’ Revilla, has yet to conduct a hearing on House Bill 3732 or the Freedom of Information Act (FOI) after the House of Representatives approved the bill last May.

      Rep. Lorenzo ‘Erin’ Tañada III, lead author of HB 3732, said in a public forum on the FOI held Friday at the Ateneo de Manila University that the access to information bill is in danger of being derailed in favor of “priority” bills such as the one on whistleblowers’ protection.

      According to a source who requested anonymity, the Senate Committee on Public Information has cancelled three hearings on the FOI. These hearings were cancelled a day before or on the day of the hearing itself. The reason: the committee has not done any research on the bill.
      After 20 years

      HB 3732 is considered a watershed piece of legislation since there is yet no enabling law for citizens’ rights on access to information 20 years after the 1987 Constitution was enacted, Tañada said.

      “In the decision on Chavez vs. NHA, the Supreme Court wrote that it is unfortunate that after almost 20 years after the 1897 Constitution was made, there is no enabling law that provides mechanism for the compulsory disclosure of information,” he explained.

      • BongV BongV says:

        tinamaan ng ningas-cogon. :lol:

        and a seeming inability tp hold legislators accountable to come up with the legislation – meanwhile, business as usual, “in aid of legislation” without any legislation forthcoming.

      • Karl Garcia says:

        Even in the link I posted below about about the number of bills filed by senators as compared to what they spent, puro mga recycled bills din ang karamihan if you bother to look at least a few of the bills.

        By the looks of it, the next senate would continue the trend of padamihan ng mga bill na recycled at co sponsored.

        Since di umandar sa senate, the house needs to recycle it as well.
        And I don’t think it is a matter of who we choose, no matter who is in congress or senate,the practice will continue. So many bills so little time9because so much time watsed.
        I suggest more session days in a week, less absenteeism.And of course most of your(bongvs suggestions about participation of the citzenry)
        This is a true story, I saw a senator who entered a different room dahil palaging wala(naligaw), me senator top notcher sa number of bills nung tina tackle ang 5 bills nya, wala naman sya e di wala din.

      • myrrh says:

        I passed by the discussions but I need to say something. Our taxpayers must be honored. If I were contributor of bulky taxes in this country, I would demand that this amount must be accounted to my priority to budget for the welfare of street children and educate the indigents to raise agricultural products. Our educational institutions must limit their graduates to meet the demand of skilled workers but should be competitive to jobs abroad.

  15. Karl Garcia says:

    allow me to repost here an article written by the cat:

    http://filipinovoices.com/bills-filed-bills-paid-by-the-senators-of-the-14th-congress

  16. Karl Garcia says:

    Since we are talking about the poor,let’s zoom in one of the bills filed more than a decade ago which will not just affect the poor but the entire nation.But awa ng…. wala pa ding nagyayari

    Malaya (01/07/99)
    ==============================================
    “What Senator Honasan wants to do is to put some order in our lives through
    the passage of a law that would regulate land-use.”
    ==============================================
    Greg’s Dream
    by Ducky Paredes

    One Senator, just one, has an idea that is worth pursuing. It is not a
    grand idea, nothing breath-taking, scandalous or attention-getting to it.
    Thus, although the idea is one that is absolutely necessary to our
    country’s continued survival, no one else in the Senate pays the senator or
    his pet bill any attention.
    The Senator is Gregorio Honasan. The implementation of Gringo’s idea would
    bring order to what is now chaos. It is a revolutionary one and would
    change the way that we, Pinoys, live our lives.
    Greg tried to push it in the last session, during the Ramos years. He got
    no attention from that administration or from his fellow-senators. Senator
    Honasan’s grand idea is simply the passage of a law that would regulate
    land-use.
    While land-use legislation would not attract the attention of the bishops,
    activists, the left or other noisy sectors of society, in reality, this is
    legislation that would serve the country as a whole. It is something that
    we need absolutely. Without it, in ten years, our cities will no longer be
    habitable nor will our farmlands and our forests be productive. Without it,
    there would be no country to speak of. Our wayward development would, by
    then, have choked all our cities to a standstill.
    What is the difference between the cities we admire in other parts of our
    globe and our cities in the Philippines? Theirs — be they Singapore, Kuala
    Lumpur, Paris, Hong Kong, Honolulu, Washington, Beijing, Moscow, Mexico or
    others — are orderly. On the other hand, our cities — be they Manila,
    Quezon City, Davao, Cebu, Iloilo, Baguio or others — are chaotic.
    Why is this? Where is the difference? They have a clear idea of land-use,
    we don’t. They write up and follow regulations regarding zoning, we don’t.
    They have regulations regarding signage, sewers, sidewalks, parking,
    building codes and so on, Our cities have none of these. Or, at least, none
    that are meticulously enforced.
    Oh, sure. Councilors in every city will remind us that they do have zoning
    regulations. They have indicated certain portions of their areas as for
    intended industrial use or for commercial or residential.
    So, one might ask them, why does Mr. Chua have a factory emitting toxic
    fumes in the middle of a residential neighborhood? Why does a residential
    neighborhood rise up in areas that are designated as commercial or even
    industrial?
    Land-use legislation will not solve all the problems of our cities but it
    would establish processes and pinpoint the authority to set up rules and
    regulations that are our only hope to solve the blight of our cities.
    Pinoys, of course, are chronic regulation-breakers. If there is a way to go
    around the law or a loophole, you can bet your bottom dollar that the Pinoy
    will find and use it!
    This is why, in all of our cities, we have commercial establishments in
    areas that are designated as residential. In fact, the way that some of our
    town and city councilors is wrong. They see residential areas as being
    upgraded when they become industrial or commercial areas.
    Thus, to many city halls all over the country, having commercial
    establishments in residential subdivisions is the way to progress since
    this is a way of upgrading these areas in terms of higher land values. This
    is wrong thinking.
    What this sort of thinking has spawned is what we see on a daily basis:
    unspeakable traffic jams. One will notice that even small towns all over
    the country have these traffic jams. What this means is that there is no
    planning in these towns and whatever zoning there is has been totally
    ignored.
    Why is this? The orderly city would have natural divisions between
    Residential Zones where people live and sleep and Commercial Zones where
    they shop and work. Then, there would also be (in a well-ordered city), a
    separate industrial area where factories which supply the commercial areas
    operate.
    There would be Mixed-Use Zones where there would be a natural commingling
    of these areas. Open Space Zones would also be designated, where no
    buildings are permitted and could be farmlands, golf courses or public
    parks, beaches or rivers. And then, there are the Public Zones, such as the
    piers, the City Hall, the public market, schools, hospitals, churches and
    other government offices.
    Thus, an administrator of such a metropolis would direct heavy trucks to
    the industrial area and give them access through special highways that are
    seldom used by the rest of the population.
    The highways that would serve the residential areas would have public
    transport and even mass transit and a lot of room for private vehicles that
    would take them to the commercial areas.
    So, what happens if all of these are all mixed up? What happens is what we
    have right now in any place in the Philippines. This is why, no matter
    where the Pinoy goes, he is mired in traffic — all the time!
    When we last talked to Gringo, he was still Gung Ho about his bill. That
    was sometime ago. We kept hoping that we would read about some positive
    development regarding his land-use legislation. We have heard nothing at
    all.

    Call it ningas cogon, but if it is not considered urgent, walang mangyayari dito.
    Meron pala pupunta ito sa recycle bin.

    I remember numerous blogs about the carp and a discussion about lina law a few weeks back, maybe a land use law can help. I don’t know,we all have our own definition of urgent and priority.

  17. batik says:

    I think that Senator Bong Revilla should not be faulted for having come to the defense of victim Katrina Halili. He is, after all, first and foremost a movie actor. I also share the view that the issue is not any less important than other matters of national significance. The fact that the sex scandal is the most talked about topic in any gathering is proof of the relative importance people have placed on the issue. The senator’s checkered past should also be irrelevant in the discussion.

  18. chocnat says:

    I love Bong Revilla.
    F*ck it if your skin crawls at that. Hahaha.
    The guy is for the people and not for the people’s money.
    Have we ever heard him as a part of the kurakot gang bangers of senators?

  19. drayber09 says:

    by eklavumerINALMAHAN ni Senador Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr. ang pahayag ni Manila 6th District Rep. Bienvenido Abante Jr. na siya ang dapat sisihin sa patuloy na pagkalat ng cybersex videos sa bansa.

    Ayon kay Sen. Revilla, dapat munang nag-research nang mabuti si Abante bago magbitiw ng mga maling pahayag laban sa kanya.

    Kaugnay nito, itinanggi ng senador na inuupuan lamang niya ang House approved Bill 3305 na naglalayong magpataw ng parusa sa Cyber Pornography, noong siya pa ang chairman ng ng Senate Committee on Public Information and Mass Media.

    Aniya, dapat maging responsable ang kongresista sa kanyang mga pahayag upang hindi magmukhang ignorante sa publiko.

    Ipinaliwanag pa ni Revilla, totoong na-transmit sa Senado ang HB 3305 at sumailalim sa first reading noong Pebrero 12, 2008, ngunit taliwas sa sinasabi ni Abante, ito’y na-irefer sa Committee on Justice and Human Rights at hindi sa kanyang komite.
    Sa kabila nito, nauunawaan ni Revilla si Abante sa pagnanais ng kongresistang maipasa ang panukala ngunit nararapat naman aniyang inalam muna niya nang mabuti ang kanyang sasabihin bago ito ipahayag sa publiko.

    jojo sicat/cynthia martin/hataw online

  20. superhero_ako says:

    Press Release
    June 1, 2009
    REVILLA SLAMS ABANTE OVER MISLEADING FACTS ON PORN BILL

    “Research before you besmirch. You’re barking on the wrong tree. You should fire your staff for putting you in an embarrassing situation.”

    This was the advice of Senator Bong Revilla to Manila 6th District Rep. Bienvenido Abante Jr. over the latter’s accusation that he should be blamed for the proliferation of cybersex videos. Revilla vehemently denied Abante’s allegation that he sat on the House-approved Bill 3305, which seeks to slap penalties on cyber pornography, when he was chairman of the Senate Committee on Public Information and Mass Media.

    “I urge the good congressman to get his facts straight before making unfounded assertions and accusations such as this. He should be responsible so that he does not make himself appear ignorant in front of the public,” Revilla said.

    The senator explained that HB 3305 was indeed transmitted to the Senate and read on first reading on February 12, 2008. However, contrary to Abante’s claim, the measure was primarily referred to the Committee on Justice and Human Rights and not to his committee. “As a legislator, he should at least know which committee his measure was referred to and that the duty of scheduling his House Bill for hearing does not fall under the responsibility of my previous committee,” he pointed out.

    Revilla however clarified that he does share Abante’s zeal and interest in passing quality legislation aimed at curtailing the proliferation of pornography. “As a fellow lawmaker, I empathize with him on the frustration he must be feeling that his measure has yet to become law,” the senator said.

    “In fact, as early as July 2007, I have filed the Anti- Pornography Bill which covers the tri-media as well as cyberspace. A committee report has already been filed last November 14, 2008, having been signed by the committee members. Unfortunately, the filing was refused by the Committee on Rules because technicalities arose regarding the bill’s primary referral,” he stressed.

    According to former Committee on Public Information Secretary Norberto Villanueva, the Rules Committee said the referral should have been to the Justice and Human Rights Committee and not to the Public Information and Mass Media Committee, resulting to the refusal and delay.

    Before the technicalities were pointed out however, Revilla successfully conducted Public Hearings and Technical Working Groups on the consolidated measure of 11 bills filed by him and Senators Jinggoy Estrada, Loren Legarda, Manuel Villar, and Mirian Defensor-Santiago.

    ANO HA

Speak Your Mind

*