Treating me like a robot. Accusing me of not knowing how to respect. Treating me as if I'm never capable of anything. ANYTHING.

Misinterpretations. Oh, the misinterpretations. Kayo na lang ang laging tama at ako na lang ang palaging mali. KAYO TAMA, AKO MALI. Parang gusto niyo yang ibaon sa utak ko panhabambuhay eh.

Bastos ako? Hindi marunong sa mga bagay-bagay? Putang ina ako? Lahat na lang ng trip niyong sabihin sa akin sinabi niyo na, at patuloy pa kayo. Nakakasulasol na. Nakakapikon. Nakakapandilim ng paningin.

*sigh*

I can't wait for the day that I will be living away from them. I want to get away...

PUTANG INA NIYO!

But if by any chance they should recoil, and thus make answer: "We are ready at all times to submit to the Law and the People's will, and to bow to their demands, but we cannot and must not be asked to place our calling, our duty, and our honour beneath the irresponsible rule of an arbitrary autocrat, however sympathetic with the generality he may chance to be!" Then, we would ask: "Sirs, did you ever hear of that great saying: 'Do unto others as ye would they should do unto you!'" For it is but fair presumption that the Dramatists, whom our Legislators have placed in bondage to a despot, are, no less than those Legislators, proud of their calling, conscious of their duty, and jealous of their honour.

Censorship is the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful or sensitive, as determined by a censor. The rationale for censorship is different for various types of data censored. Censorship is the act or practice of removing material from things we encounter every day on the grounds that it is obscene, vulgar, and/or highly objectionable. Whether it is on TV, in music, books, or on the Internet, censorship is an inescapable part of human society. Censorship can be broken into different categories:

 

    * Moral censorship is the means by which any material that contains what the censor deems to be of questionable morality is removed. The censoring body disapproves of what it deems to be the values behind the material and limits access to it. Pornography, for example, is often censored under this rationale. In another example, graphic violence resulted in the censorship of the "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant" movie entitled "Scarface" originally completed in 1932.

    * Military censorship is the process of keeping military intelligence and tactics confidential and away from the enemy. This is used to counter espionage, which is the process of gleaning military information. Additionally, military censorship may involve a restriction on information or media coverage that can be released to the public. This is also considered acceptable by even democratic governments as necessary for the preservation of national security.

    * Political censorship occurs when governments hold back secret information from their citizens. The logic is to prevent the free expression needed to rebel. Democracies do not officially approve of political censorship but often endorse it privately.[citation needed] Any dissent against the government is thought to be a “weakness” for the enemy to exploit.[citation needed] Campaign tactics are also often kept secret: see the Watergate scandal.

    * Religious censorship is the means by which any material objectionable to a certain faith is removed. This often involves a dominant religion forcing limitations on less prevalent ones. Alternatively, one religion may shun the works of another when they believe the content is not appropriate for their faith. This type of censorship is common in several Middle Eastern countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran as well in many U.S. Christian communities, especially Evangelicals.

* Corporate censorship is the process by which editors in corporate media outlets intervene to halt the publishing of information that portrays their business or business partners in a negative light. Privately owned corporations in the business of reporting the news also sometimes refuse to distribute information due to the potential loss of advertiser revenue or shareholder value which adverse publicity may bring. See media bias.

 

What is censorship?
(Excerpted from Marjorie Heins' Sex, Sin and Blasphemy: A Guide to America's Censorship Wars [New Press, 1993], pp. 3-4.)
According to Webster's Dictionary, to "censor" means "to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable." The word "censor" originated in ancient Rome, where the government appointed officials to take the census and to supervise public morals. Censorship happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their political or moral values on others by suppressing words, images, or ideas that they find offensive.

A censor, traditionally, is an official whose job it is to examine literature, movies, or other forms of creative expression and to remove or ban anything she considers unsuitable. In this definition, censorship is something the government does. But censorship can also be accomplished very effectively by private groups.

Not all forms of censorship are illegal. When private individuals agitate to eliminate TV programs they dislike, or threaten to boycott the companies that support those programs with advertising dollars, they are certainly trying to censor artistic expression and interfere with the free speech of others. But their actions are perfectly legal; in fact, their protests are protected by the First Amendment right to freedom of speech.

Not even all government censorship is unlawful. For example, we still have laws against "obscenity" in art and entertainment. These laws allow the government to punish people for producing or disseminating material about sex, if a judge or jury thinks the material is sufficiently offensive and lacks any "serious value."

What is the basis for free expression in the United States?
The First Amendment (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances) protects against government restrictions on or interference with the content of speech. The First Amendment applies to Government at the national, state, and local level.

Why should I care about censorship?
Understanding of First Amendment freedoms is fragile and imperiled by increasingly effective and sophisticated attacks. In numerous communities, people are determined to impose their own narrow views on everyone else, and censor what they do not approve.
The First Amendment exists to protect speech and activities that are unpopular—if only those ideas which were popular were protected, it wouldn't be needed. Limiting free speech is unAmerican—without it, all our rights and liberties quickly disintegrate.
Censorship is an assault on the rights of all of us. We must continue to fight for the freedom to read, to see, to know, and to think for ourselves.

TIME TO ABOLISH THE MTRCB
by Atty Victor Avecilla

THERE is a need not just to overhaul the MTRCB but to abolish it.

There are sufficient grounds under the law and under the constitution in both Philippine and American jurisprudence to warrant the abolition of the MTRCB. If Congress does not abolish the Board, then I think it’s high time the Supreme Court be asked to declare the Charter of the MTRCB, Presidential Decree 1986, unconstitutional for violations of many provisions of the fundamental law which is the 1987 Constitution.

While I am not a filmmaker, I’d like to think that I understand what filmmaking is all about. Film is not just a collection of certain frames any of which can be deleted at random. Deleting one or several scenes of a motion picture is no different from editing out a paragraph or stanza from a literary piece or article. It’s no different from cutting off any part of a sculpture. It’s also no different from trimming the edges of a painting. It affects the integrity of the piece.

Cinema or the film medium is art. No less than the United States Supreme Court and the Philippine Supreme Court have sustained the view that not only is it an artistic medium, it is a medium that enjoys constitutional protection in much the same way that our broadcast media enjoy constitutional protection under freedom of the press, in much the same way that all forms of expression including buildings and wearing black handbags are deemed acts of freedom of expression.

We can trace film censorship in the Philippines to the pre-war period when we were still under the American colonial rule. At that time, cinema was a relatively new medium. Its influence was little understood. But the American colonial masters recognized a potential danger in cinema.

US jurisprudence on film censorship

In the 1920s, the US Congress enacted a law on censorship of the movies. Movie producers challenged the validity of that American law on the ground that the law was a violation of the first amendment of the US Constitution which states that the US Congress shall be prohibited from enacting any law abridging the freedom of speech and the freedom of expression. But the US Supreme Court ruled that cinema maybe subjected to censorship.

After the war in the 1950s, a movie producer decided to challenge before the US Supreme Court the constitutionality of film censorship in the United States. But the victory of film industry in the United States did not come immediately. In the first instance, the US Supreme Court acknowledged that the past doctrine was already passé because we already understand the movies. It ruled that cinema, like newspapers, periodicals and other media of communications, is entitled to constitutional protection.

All through the 1960s and the 1970s, there was a long line of cases where the US Supreme Court categorically upheld the right of producers and artists to express themselves through motion pictures. The established jurisprudence in the United States made clear that while the term cinema is not mentioned in the US Constitution, the US Supreme Court ruled that had the movies been around when Thomas Jefferson and company were contemplating the Constitution of United States, they would have also included the movies under the term of Press. So the United States Supreme Court came up with an expanded interpretation of what constitutes Press, and this included radio, television, cinema and even the videogram and such other media of communication which may not have been invented yet.

A landmark case that clarified once and for all what would constitute valid film censorship at least in the United States is the Freedman vs. Maryland case. The
Freedman ruling is very simple. For film censorship laws to be valid in the United States, these laws must comply with three conditions which are also considered the three constitutional safeguards:

1. A law calling for censorship must place the burden of proving that the motion picture is obscene on the part of the censors and not on the part of the artist or the producer. This means that if the state believes that the motion picture is obscene and therefore must be censored, then it must prove, to the satisfaction of reasonable individuals, that the particular motion picture is obscene. You’re the state, you’re the censor, you claim that the motion picture is obscene, you prove it.

2. The law must also provide that if the censor believes that a particular motion picture is obscene, then he must go to court and apply for an injunction or a court order to prohibit the public exhibition of the motion picture. Now, this is very important because in a system of democracy which the Philippines and the United States like to style themselves to be, there’s a third branch of government to check the abuses of either the legislature or the executive - and that is the judiciary. Hence, in the second Freedman procedural safeguard, the censor has to go to court and convince the judge that he’s entitled to an injunction.

3. The third safeguard is that for the law to be valid, there must be a provision stating that the decision of the censor maybe reviewed by the courts, and the courts will have the final say as to whether or not a particular motion picture should be prohibited. So in the United States, anybody and any state that may want to censor a film would have to satisfy the three Freedman procedural safeguards. This is practically ancient jurisprudence that dates back to the 1970’s and remains in force today. Sad to say, the three Freedman safeguards are absent in the charter of the MTRCB.

Film censorship in the Philippines

Anyway, what happened in the Philippines? During the American-colonial period, the jurisprudence of the United States naturally applied to the Philippines by reason of our colonial relations. The problem, however, is that after the war the Philippine government sought to improve on the film censorship laws instead of abolishing these. It created the Board of Censors for Motion Pictures (BCMP). When television became a popular medium, it came under the jurisdiction of BCMP.

Based on the law, BCMP had two very important powers. The first is its censorial power which is the power to order the deletion of certain scenes from a movie and outright banning of the film. The second is the power to classify motion pictures. Classification may either be for adults only or for general patronage.

After Martial Law was proclaimed in 1972, President Marcos abolished the BCMP and replaced it with the so-called Interim Board of Censors for Motion Pictures. With the interim nature of the board, the members practically abandoned their duties. And so there was the proliferation of pornographic films called bomba films.

In the 1980s, President Marcos established the Board of Review for Motion Pictures and Television (BRMPT). Noticeably missing was the word censorship. This did not mean, however, that it no longer censored movies. On the contrary, the censorial power remained in the BRMPT Charter. That Board was replaced by the existing board, the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB).

Kapit sa Patalim case

Through the years there had never been any serious attempt in the Philippines to challenge the constitutionality of film censorship. But in 1985, the Department of Justice and the Office of the Solicitor General of the Marcos regime convinced Malacañang to ban the Lino Brocka film, “Kapit sa Patalim” because its depiction of social ills allegedly put the country in a bad light. Upon orders of Malacañang, the BRMPT disallowed public exhibition of “Kapit sa Patalim.”

Mr. Gonzales, the Malayan Picture producer of the film decided to challenge all the way to the Supreme Court the BRMPT decision in that leading and clumsy case of Gonzales versus Maria Kalaw Katigbak (BRMPT chair). It was a clumsy case because Supreme Court decision on the case only confused rather than resolved the issue.

Mr. Gonzales’ argument was very simple: “Kapit sa Patalim” is a creation of art. It is not something the government should ban. If the government publicly professes that, notwithstanding the regime of Martial Law, there’s a freedom of expression in the country, the government therefore has no business prohibiting the public exhibition of the film. The Solicitor General opposed the petition, arguing that the state had the power to prohibit certain activities which, in the opinion of the executive department, violate national security.

The Supreme Court found itself in a tight situation because this was still the martial law period. Its ruling was nothing but disturbing. According to the Supreme Court: “If the Censor’s body does not want to be accused of exercising unconstitutional power, then its powers are limited to the classification of films.” That is very polite language used on an intimidating leadership. But the message came through. It was a polite way of telling the board: if you decide to censor certain films you are treading on unconstitutional grounds.

But the Supreme Court was not able to muster the eight votes necessary to come up with doctrinal decisions. A doctrinal decision is a decision that binds future cases. Lacking the necessary eight votes, the petition was dismissed. Eventually, realizing that public opinion against the government was gaining ground, the government allowed public exhibition of the film “Kapit sa Patalim.”

Unconstitutionality of MTRCB

Sad to say, however, the confusing decision remains in our statute books. Which brings us to the question: is it now possible to ask the Supreme Court to declare the Charter of the MTRCB unconstitutional?

The Charter of the MTRCB, Presidential Decree of 1986, is a verbatim reproduction of the Charter of the BRMPT. The same unconstitutional features remain. One might ask why the PD still exists when Marcos is already a personality of the past. Sad to say, the transitory provisions of the 1987 Constitution state that all Presidential Decrees which are not repealed by Congress and are not inconsistent with the Constitution remain in force and effect. Up to today, Congress has not repealed, much less amended, PD 1986.
Since the Supreme Court during the martial law period sustained the power of President Marcos to enact legislation, the PDs which have not been repealed enjoy the same status as the Republic Acts.

What features in the MTRCB Charter are unconstitutional? First and foremost, the Charter violates all three Freedman procedural safeguards. On that score, we can already ask the Supreme Court to declare it unconstitutional.

The second has to do with the powers and actions of the board. There’s a doctrine in Constitutional Law which says that if the government prohibits certain acts and it does not define those acts clearly, then that law is unconstitutional under the so called Void for Vagueness Doctrine. The MTRCB Charter enumerates the grounds on which the Board may censor certain films. But included in the enumeration is the disturbing proviso “such as but not limited to.” With this proviso, you can actually have a ridiculous situation where, hindi lang siguro magustuhan ng censor and make-up ng producer o director, pwede nang i-ban ang pelikula. You thus have a body of censors more powerful than Congress. Congress always has to define what it wants to prohibit, but here we have a Board that can prohibit anything for whatever reason without being held accountable.

Another unconstitutional feature of the Charter is that its standard procedure is violative of administrative due process. Administrative due process requires that the standards for the exercise of power must be clearly defined. For example, when a film is judged by the board as obscene, we must know what constitutes obscenity. The standard for obscenity must be defined. Yang mga nakahubad diyan, malaswa na ba agad yan? If such were the case, so many of our statues in Manila and even here in UP would be banned.

The definition provided in the Charter is insufficient, because anything can be obscene as far as the definition of pornography is concerned. Take the clause, “those which serve no other purpose but to satisfy the market for violence or pornography” may be banned. What is disturbing here is that when the Board determines if a film is pornographic, they look at intent, not content. Intent is used to judge content. Isn’t this silly? But it’s there. It’s the law.

The Charter adopts a standard which no less than our Supreme Court has abandoned as early as 1947. Before 1947, issues involving freedom of expression were resolved by the Supreme Court by applying the so-called Dangerous Tendency Test. Under this, citizens may be prevented from expressing themselves when what they say will be dangerous to the state. But how can the court determine when an exercise of the freedom of speech is proper or improper? Fortunately, civilized men and women prevailed after the war and the Dangerous Tendency Test was abandoned by no less than the Supreme Court when it categorically declared in the case of Premicias and Formoso that the state has no business censoring any activity of any individual in the country unless such speech, such movie, such television program amounts to a clear and present danger of a substantive evil which the state may reasonably protect itself against.

In simple terms, what does this mean? If the state wants to prohibit you from delivering a speech or from putting up a play, or if the state wants you to shut up, then the state must show you that your speech/play/remark will be of such clear and present danger that the security of the state will be undermined. An action can be banned only if it is shown that it can cause death or injury to the public or it may be a threat to public health. For example, no one is allowed to shout “Sunog” in a crowded theater because this may result in a stampede and thus cause danger to life and limb.

It’s high time that the industry gets together to challenge the serious threat of the Charter of the MTRCB to our fundamental freedom, the freedom to express ourselves. The founders of the American Constitution recognized that the freedom of speech is even more important than due process of law. No wonder they made it the first amendment to the United States Constitution: that no law shall be passed that violates freedom of speech, etc. On that score therefore, I would propose that concerned artists in the Philippines and all those who believe that now is the time to press for a change in the censorship law, should file a petition in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of PD 1986, the MTRCB Charter.

My name is JP V. Carpio. I am a proud Ilonggo from Bacolod City, Negros Occidental. I am one of a group of filmmakers who were invited by the newly formed Independent Filmmakers' Cooperative to go to Guimaras last September and shoot short films in connection with what happened there, what is STILL happening there, and possibly, may continue there for a long time: the sad and harsh reality of the oil spill.

I don't want to take any or too much time and focus away from Guimaras, its environment, its people, the oil spill, and the screening of our films tonight, so I'll get right to the point.

My film that was broadcasted on network television last Sunday, October 8 was CENSORED. Specific and certain key portions of the film involving the residents of Guimaras expressing their HONEST feelings about the oil company and the shipping company, who as we all know are involved in this TRAGEDY, were CLEARLY EDITED OUT, OMITTED, CENSORED.

Some other filmmakers involved also suffered a similar TREATMENT.

PUTTING ASIDE MY VERY STRONG PERSONAL FEELINGS regarding this, what this censorship did was not only compromise the film, MORE IMPORTANTLY, it COMPROMISED the HONEST _expression of feelings of these RESIDENTS OF GUIMARAS regarding the matter which as we all know, but it can't be emphasized enough, affects them LITERALLY ON A LIFE-AND-DEATH LEVEL.

This censorship DESTROYS the very reasons all the films were made: TO HELP give Guimaras and its people more of a VOICE. To help show their perspectives, because MORE than anyone else, Guimaras – the island and its people – know FIRST HAND what's going on there and how IT AFFECTS THEM second-by-second.

This was sadly DENIED to them last Sunday, October 8, 2006.

If you want to know more of the details, I will be open for questions AFTER THE SCREENINGS, because what we are here for today is Guimaras, its environment, its people, the oil spill, and the screening of the films.

Thank you all for LISTENING.

Welcome to "Guimaras: Short films from the Oil Spill". All the films are UNCENSORED this evening.

Mayong gab-I sa inyo tanan liwat. Good evening to you all again.

 

The Censorship of Art

Things are heating up in America. People are protesting outside of the movie theaters, concerts, and book and record stores of this great nation everywhere. What is all the fuss about? Censorship, Government officials and raving mad protesters alike have been trying to stop the expressive creativity in everything from Marilyn Manson to Mark Twain. One of the biggest shake-ups happened in museums all over the world recently that would have made Michelangelo and Da Vinci’s hair stand on end. In the Constitution of the United States, the First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, religion, press, the right to assemble and to petition the government; the Ninth Amendment says, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people". So it seems one cannot use any of the other rights to quell the rights of an individual or group. Then why is the government trying to censor literature, movies, music and art? All of the world’s modern society has become desensitized and easily trainable. Therefore society has come to accept the ideals, morals, and values driven into the psyche by the dominant forces in the nation: the Government and the Church.

 

Since, time and again, it has been proved, in this country of free institutions, that the great majority of our fellow-countrymen consider the only Censorship that now obtains amongst us, namely the Censorship of Plays, a bulwark for the preservation of their comfort and sensibility against the spiritual researches and speculations of bolder and too active spirits--it has become time to consider whether we should not seriously extend a principle, so grateful to the majority, to all our institutions.

For no one can deny that in practice the Censorship of Drama works with a smooth swiftness--a lack of delay and friction unexampled in any public office. No troublesome publicity and tedious postponement for the purpose of appeal mar its efficiency. It is neither hampered by the Law nor by the slow process of popular election. Welcomed by the overwhelming majority of the public; objected to only by such persons as suffer from it, and a negligible faction, who, wedded pedantically to liberty of the subject, are resentful of summary powers vested in a single person responsible only to his own 'conscience'--it is amazingly, triumphantly, successful.

Why, then, in a democratic State, is so valuable a protector of the will, the interests, and pleasure of the majority not bestowed on other branches of the public being? Opponents of the Censorship of Plays have been led by the absence of such other Censorships to conclude that this Office is an archaic survival, persisting into times that have outgrown it. They have been known to allege that the reason of its survival is simply the fact that Dramatic Authors, whose reputation and means of livelihood it threatens, have ever been few in number and poorly organised--that the reason, in short, is the helplessness and weakness of the interests concerned. We must all combat with force such an aspersion on our Legislature. Can it even for a second be supposed that a State which gives trial by Jury to the meanest, poorest, most helpless of its citizens, and concedes to the greatest criminals the right of appeal, could have debarred a body of reputable men from the ordinary rights of citizenship for so cynical a reason as that their numbers were small, their interests unjoined, their protests feeble? Such a supposition were intolerable! We do not in this country deprive a class of citizens of their ordinary rights, we do not place their produce under the irresponsible control of one not amenable to Law, by any sort of political accident! That would indeed be to laugh at Justice in this Kingdom! That would indeed be cynical and unsound! We must never admit that there is no basic Justice controlling the edifice of our Civic Rights. We do, we must, conclude that a just and well-considered principle underlies this despotic Institution; for surely, else, it would not be suffered to survive for a single moment! Pom! Pom!

If, then, the Censorship of Plays be just, beneficent, and based on a well-considered principle, we must rightly inquire what good and logical reason there is for the absence of Censorship in other departments of the national life. If Censorship of the Drama be in the real interests of the people, or at all events in what the Censor for the time being conceives to be their interest--then Censorships of Art, Literature, Religion, Science, and Politics are in the interests of the people, unless it can be proved that there exists essential difference between the Drama and these other branches of the public being. Let us consider whether there is any such essential difference.

It is fact, beyond dispute, that every year numbers of books appear which strain the average reader's intelligence and sensibilities to an unendurable extent; books whose speculations are totally unsuited to normal thinking powers; books which contain views of morality divergent from the customary, and discussions of themes unsuited to the young person; books which, in fine, provide the greater Public with no pleasure whatsoever, and, either by harrowing their feelings or offending their good taste, cause them real pain.

It is true that, precisely as in the case of Plays, the Public are protected by a vigilant and critical Press from works of this description; that, further, they are protected by the commercial instinct of the Libraries, who will not stock an article which may offend their customers--just as, in the case of Plays, the Public are protected by the common-sense of theatrical Managers; that, finally, they are protected by the Police and the Common Law of the land. But despite all these protections, it is no uncommon thing for an average citizen to purchase one of these disturbing or dubious books. Has he, on discovering its true nature, the right to call on the bookseller to refund its value? He has not. And thus he runs a danger obviated in the case of the Drama which has the protection of a prudential Censorship. For this reason alone, how much better, then, that there should exist a paternal authority (some, no doubt, will call it grand-maternal--but sneers must not be confounded with argument) to suppress these books before appearance, and safeguard us from the danger of buying and possibly reading undesirable or painful literature!

A specious reason, however, is advanced for exempting Literature from the Censorship accorded to Plays. He--it is said--who attends the performance of a play, attends it in public, where his feelings may be harrowed and his taste offended, cheek by jowl with boys, or women of all ages; it may even chance that he has taken to this entertainment his wife, or the young persons of his household. He--on the other hand--who reads a book, reads it in privacy. True; but the wielder of this argument has clasped his fingers round a two-edged blade. The very fact that the book has no mixed audience removes from Literature an element which is ever the greatest check on licentiousness in Drama. No manager of a theatre,--a man of the world engaged in the acquisition of his livelihood, unless guaranteed by the license of the Censor, dare risk the presentment before a mixed audience of that which might cause an 'emeute' among his clients. It has, indeed, always been observed that the theatrical manager, almost without exception, thoughtfully recoils from the responsibility that would be thrust on him by the abolition of the Censorship. The fear of the mixed audience is ever suspended above his head. No such fear threatens the publisher, who displays his wares to one man at a time. And for this very reason of the mixed audience; perpetually and perversely cited to the contrary by such as have no firm grasp of this matter, there is a greater necessity for a Censorship on Literature than for one on Plays.

Further, if there were but a Censorship of Literature, no matter how dubious the books that were allowed to pass, the conscience of no reader need ever be troubled. For, that the perfect rest of the public conscience is the first result of Censorship, is proved to certainty by the protected Drama, since many dubious plays are yearly put before the play-going Public without tending in any way to disturb a complacency engendered by the security from harm guaranteed by this beneficent, if despotic, Institution. Pundits who, to the discomfort of the populace, foster this exemption of Literature from discipline, cling to the old-fashioned notion that ulcers should be encouraged to discharge themselves upon the surface, instead of being quietly and decently driven into the system and allowed to fester there.

The remaining plea for exempting Literature from Censorship, put forward by unreflecting persons: That it would require too many Censors--besides being unworthy, is, on the face of it, erroneous. Special tests have never been thought necessary in appointing Examiners of Plays. They would, indeed, not only be unnecessary, but positively dangerous, seeing that the essential function of Censorship is protection of the ordinary prejudices and forms of thought. There would, then, be no difficulty in securing tomorrow as many Censors of Literature as might be necessary (say twenty or thirty); since all that would be required of each one of them would be that he should secretly exercise, in his uncontrolled discretion, his individual taste. In a word, this Free Literature of ours protects advancing thought and speculation; and those who believe in civic freedom subject only to Common Law, and espouse the cause of free literature, are championing a system which is essentially undemocratic, essentially inimical to the will of the majority, who have certainly no desire for any such things as advancing thought and speculation. Such persons, indeed, merely hold the faith that the People, as a whole, unprotected by the despotic judgments of single persons, have enough strength and wisdom to know what is and what is not harmful to themselves. They put their trust in a Public Press and a Common Law, which deriving from the Conscience of the Country, is openly administered and within the reach of all. How absurd, how inadequate this all is we see from the existence of the Censorship on Drama.

Having observed that there is no reason whatever for the exemption of Literature, let us now turn to the case of Art. Every picture hung in a gallery, every statue placed on a pedestal, is exposed to the public stare of a mixed company. Why, then, have we no Censorship to protect us from the possibility of encountering works that bring blushes to the cheek of the young person? The reason cannot be that the proprietors of Galleries are more worthy of trust than the managers of Theatres; this would be to make an odious distinction which those very Managers who uphold the Censorship of Plays would be the first to resent. It is true that Societies of artists and the proprietors of Galleries are subject to the prosecution of the Law if they offend against the ordinary standards of public decency; but precisely the same liability attaches to theatrical managers and proprietors of Theatres, in whose case it has been found necessary and beneficial to add the Censorship. And in this connection let it once more be noted how much more easily the ordinary standards of public decency can be assessed by a single person responsible to no one, than by the clumsy (if more open) process of public protest. What, then, in the light of the proved justice and efficiency of the Censorship of Drama, is the reason for the absence of the Censorship of Art? The more closely the matter is regarded, the more plain it is, that there is none! At any moment we may have to look upon some painting, or contemplate some statue, as tragic, heart-rending, and dubiously delicate in theme as that censured play "The Cenci," by one Shelley; as dangerous to prejudice, and suggestive of new thought as the censured "Ghosts," by one Ibsen. Let us protest against this peril suspended over our heads, and demand the immediate appointment of a single person not selected for any pretentiously artistic feelings, but endowed with summary powers of prohibiting the exhibition, in public galleries or places, of such works as he shall deem, in his uncontrolled discretion, unsuited to average intelligence or sensibility. Let us demand it in the interest, not only of the young person, but of those whole sections of the community which cannot be expected to take an interest in Art, and to whom the purpose, speculations, and achievements of great artists, working not only for to-day but for to-morrow, must naturally be dark riddles. Let us even require that this official should be empowered to order the destruction of the works which he has deemed unsuited to average intelligence and sensibility, lest their creators should, by private sale, make a profit out of them, such as, in the nature of the case, Dramatic Authors are debarred from making out of plays which, having been censured, cannot be played for money. Let us ask this with confidence; for it is not compatible with common justice that there should be any favouring of Painter over Playwright. They are both artists--let them both be measured by the same last!

But let us now consider the case of Science. It will not, indeed cannot, be contended that the investigations of scientific men, whether committed to writing or to speech, are always suited to the taste and capacities of our general public. There was, for example, the well-known doctrine of Evolution, the teachings of Charles Darwin and Alfred Russet Wallace, who gathered up certain facts, hitherto but vaguely known, into presentments, irreverent and startling, which, at the time, profoundly disturbed every normal mind. Not only did religion, as then accepted, suffer in this cataclysm, but our taste and feeling were inexpressibly shocked by the discovery, so emphasised by Thomas Henry Huxley, of Man's descent from Apes. It was felt, and is felt by many to this day, that the advancement of that theory grossly and dangerously violated every canon of decency. What pain, then, might have been averted, what far-reaching consequences and incalculable subversion of primitive faiths checked, if some judicious Censor of scientific thought had existed in those days to demand, in accordance with his private estimate of the will and temper of the majority, the suppression of the doctrine of Evolution.

Innumerable investigations of scientists on subjects such as the date of the world's creation, have from time to time been summarised and inconsiderately sprung on a Public shocked and startled by the revelation that facts which they were accustomed to revere were conspicuously at fault. So, too, in the range of medicine, it would be difficult to cite any radical discovery (such as the preventive power of vaccination), whose unchecked publication has not violated the prejudices and disturbed the immediate comfort of the common mind. Had these discoveries been judiciously suppressed, or pared away to suit what a Censorship conceived to be the popular palate of the time, all this disturbance and discomfort might have been avoided.

It will doubtless be contended (for there are no such violent opponents of Censorship as those who are threatened with the same) that to compare a momentous disclosure, such as the doctrine of Evolution, to a mere drama, were unprofitable. The answer to this ungenerous contention is fortunately plain. Had a judicious Censorship existed over our scientific matters, such as for two hundred years has existed over our Drama, scientific discoveries would have been no more disturbing and momentous than those which we are accustomed to see made on our nicely pruned and tutored stage. For not only would the more dangerous and penetrating scientific truths have been carefully destroyed at birth, but scientists, aware that the results of investigations offensive to accepted notions would be suppressed, would long have ceased to waste their time in search of a knowledge repugnant to average intelligence, and thus foredoomed, and have occupied themselves with services more agreeable to the public taste, such as the rediscovery of truths already known and published.

Indissolubly connected with the desirability of a Censorship of Science, is the need for Religious Censorship. For in this, assuredly not the least important department of the nation's life, we are witnessing week by week and year by year, what in the light of the security guaranteed by the Censorship of Drama, we are justified in terming an alarming spectacle. Thousands of men are licensed to proclaim from their pulpits, Sunday after Sunday, their individual beliefs, quite regardless of the settled convictions of the masses of their congregations. It is true, indeed, that the vast majority of sermons (like the vast majority of plays) are, and will always be, harmonious with the feelings--of the average citizen; for neither priest nor playwright have customarily any such peculiar gift of spiritual daring as might render them unsafe mentors of their fellows; and there is not wanting the deterrent of common-sense to keep them in bounds. Yet it can hardly be denied that there spring up at times men--like John Wesley or General Booth--of such incurable temperament as to be capable of abusing their freedom by the promulgation of doctrine or procedure, divergent from the current traditions of religion. Nor must it be forgotten that sermons, like plays, are addressed to a mixed audience of families, and that the spiritual teachings of a lifetime may be destroyed by ten minutes of uncensored pronouncement from a pulpit, the while parents are sitting, not, as in a theatre vested with the right of protest, but dumb and excoriated to the soul, watching their children, perhaps of tender age, eagerly drinking in words at variance with that which they themselves have been at such pains to instil.

If a set of Censors--for it would, as in the case of Literature, indubitably require more than one (perhaps one hundred and eighty, but, for reasons already given, there should be no difficulty whatever in procuring them) endowed with the swift powers conferred by freedom from the dull tedium of responsibility, and not remarkable for religious temperament, were appointed, to whom all sermons and public addresses on religious subjects must be submitted before delivery, and whose duty after perusal should be to excise all portions not conformable to their private ideas of what was at the moment suitable to the Public's ears, we should be far on the road toward that proper preservation of the status quo so desirable if the faiths and ethical standards of the less exuberantly spiritual masses are to be maintained in their full bloom. As things now stand, the nation has absolutely nothing to safeguard it against religious progress.

We have seen, then, that Censorship is at least as necessary over Literature, Art, Science, and Religion as it is over our Drama. We have now to call attention to the crowning need--the want of a Censorship in Politics.

If Censorship be based on justice, if it be proved to serve the Public and to be successful in its lonely vigil over Drama, it should, and logically must be, extended to all parallel cases; it cannot, it dare not, stop short at--Politics. For, precisely in this supreme branch of the public life are we most menaced by the rule and license of the leading spirit. To appreciate this fact, we need only examine the Constitution of the House of Commons. Six hundred and seventy persons chosen from a population numbering four and forty millions, must necessarily, whatever their individual defects, be citizens of more than average enterprise, resource, and resolution. They are elected for a period that may last five years. Many of them are ambitious; some uncompromising; not a few enthusiastically eager to do something for their country; filled with designs and aspirations for national or social betterment, with which the masses, sunk in the immediate pursuits of life, can in the nature of things have little sympathy. And yet we find these men licensed to pour forth at pleasure, before mixed audiences, checked only by Common Law and Common Sense political utterances which may have the gravest, the most terrific consequences; utterances which may at any moment let loose revolution, or plunge the country into war; which often, as a fact, excite an utter detestation, terror, and mistrust; or shock the most sacred domestic and proprietary convictions in the breasts of vast majorities of their fellow-countrymen! And we incur this appalling risk for the want of a single, or at the most, a handful of Censors, invested with a simple but limitless discretion to excise or to suppress entirely such political utterances as may seem to their private judgments calculated to cause pain or moral disturbance in the average man. The masses, it is true, have their protection and remedy against injudicious or inflammatory politicians in the Law and the so-called democratic process of election; but we have seen that theatre audiences have also the protection of the Law, and the remedy of boycott, and that in their case, this protection and this remedy are not deemed enough. What, then, shall we say of the case of Politics, where the dangers attending inflammatory or subversive utterance are greater a million fold, and the remedy a thousand times less expeditious?

Our Legislators have laid down Censorship as the basic principle of Justice underlying the civic rights of dramatists. Then, let "Censorship for all" be their motto, and this country no longer be ridden and destroyed by free Institutions! Let them not only establish forthwith Censorships of Literature, Art, Science, and Religion, but also place themselves beneath the regimen with which they have calmly fettered Dramatic Authors. They cannot deem it becoming to their regard for justice, to their honour; to their sense of humour, to recoil from a restriction which, in a parallel case they have imposed on others. It is an old and homely saying that good officers never place their men in positions they would not themselves be willing to fill. And we are not entitled to believe that our Legislators, having set Dramatic Authors where they have been set, will--now that their duty is made plain--for a moment hesitate to step down and stand alongside.

Everyone, please try this one out (click the image below):



Got that one from sixthwinemaiden, and like she said, it could be the most accurate personality test that you'll be ever taking. :D

I'm quite surprised to realize that a handful of people who know me very well (particularly pepemaglutac) is aware that I am an eccentric person, willing to try things that are out of the ordinary and ending up preferring them than the usual. Usually, I have these tendencies to stay out of the norms by doing different things on random days (like eating Tom Yum for dinner with Pepe at Dusit Thani Glorietta after a long, long walk around the Makati Central Business District, which happened prior to the posting of this entry), since I find everyday life as just a cycle of events that happen every now and then, and inasmuch as I try to get out of the cycle, my efforts would just fail the next day and the boring cycle would just continue. Which is why I try to apply glory and splendor to everything that I do, so that I would get to enjoy and not get bored. But sometimes, sitting in a corner while staring at the wall makes me happy. :D It's an unusual activity that you people might enjoy and should do occasionally, for a change. :D

Earlier, I had a prediction that this day would be a boring one (think of those dreaded summer days), which is why I invited my best friend Pepe to stall around somewhere within the vicinity of my home. After accompanying my brother to his high school to check out his class section, we played two rounds of Dance Dance Revolution in Timezone Walter Mart. Screw myself for missing the chance to get an AA rating in Spin the Disc Expert. >_< After that, I took my brother home, and we started out on our journey. We first transversed along Buendia Avenue going towards the Central Business District, and after traveling along Salcedo Park, we ended up at the western part of Makati Avenue, without getting tired at all. We passed through Glorietta and had our unusual dinner there (Tom Yum at Dusit Thani - a must-try for people with adventure in their veins). After having dinner, I went to The Ramp to check out if they have the appropriate outfits that I need for my cos-trip attempt for Toy Con. Although I wasn't able to purchase anything, I found out that there are lots of good stuff there, all of them equipped with the right prices (Php900 for a neat vest is pretty much cheap already). After that, we left the place on foot again, and this time we passed along the Dela Rosa overpass that connects my area to Greenbelt. That part of Makati City felt very unusual this Saturday night, as there were only a few people going around the malls and the adjacent areas.

It would be fun to do stuff like that everyday. Then again, it wouldn't be nice to go on an adventure daily. That would just form another cycle, and that could be really tiring once you get used to it.

I have already submitted my application form for the school paper I plan to join in. The application exam starts on June 14, and I guess that I should prepare for that. Nothing beats being a member of a school paper as a resume decor. :D Jk. XD I just hope that the application exam for our school paper would not concoct a brain cream out of me. o_O

Finally, I was able to get hold of the colored wax that I have been looking for months. I had to go all the way from DLSU Manila to SM Megamall just to check whether they still store stocks of it, since I heard from my friend that it disappears from the shelves very quickly. Luckily,  there were two remaining stocks of colored wax (blue), and, despite being a bit hesitant to purchase it since it comes in blue, when in fact, I really wanted to purchase the red one, I bought one. Actually, the product comes at a very cheap price: Php 80 pesos is not bad for such a novelty item. :D By being able to travel all the way from Manila to Mandaluyong, excessive perspiration was, of course, an inevitable part of my journey earlier that involved the use of the crowded Light Rail Trains and my set of feet for walking under the excruciatingly hot weather. Yet, I said to myself that the excessive sweating was worth it. :D

Tomorrow, I am going to pursue an attempt to join one of our school newspapers - Ang Pahayagang Plaridel. :D Hopefully this time, I'll be hired as a writer.

Ever since high school days, I have always dreamed of joining the writing staff of our school paper. The job itself, I think, is not really that tedious, though one has to possess an essential element dubbed as careful and rational judgment when writing. When it comes to that area, I do not have any problems. Rational thinking has not been my problem ever since, since I pay more attention to the content of my essays, save the last for vocabulary quality. Grammar's not a problem for me as well, since in writing, one could focus well on improving one's grammar in the course of the creation of the article.

Come to think of it, I was not accepted as a writer when I applied for our school paper during high school, though I was asked to work as a graphic artist instead, though no one told me that editors were also prevalent in the graphics team; they edited my friggin' works, and on top of that, they did not make any efforts to call my attention so that they could have at least asked my permission. >_o

Oh dear, I just came home from 168 Divisoria with Pepe to look for some cosplay materials (read: clothes), and whoa, I am quite amazed by what I saw in the area. There were lots of pretty clothes everywhere, and they bring along with them their pretty prices (200 pesos for a graphic shirt is quite cheap, since similar stuff that you could buy from the high-end malls are priced at around 200-300% more than the priced mentioned). Although I wasn't able to please myself by purchasing anything from the place, I am satisfied to realize that high fashion-type clothing could be bought at such low prices, albeit at a less comfortable part of the city.

I am actually planning to cosplay  for the lulz this coming Toy Con, and Mana-chan recommended that I should cosplay Maya (of PLastic Tree fame). Costume seems nice though, butI got to do something with my hair! T_T

I'm so happy to be given the opportunity to create this very first post in this little webnook of mine. 8D I would rather not create waste out of this barely modified livejournal account, and so now, I shall begin posting. :D

School started just recently. I'm already in my second year in college, and I guess it's high time for me to study hard once again and prepare for my major subjects scheduled in the upcoming terms. Right now, I have yet to feel the same pressure that was once active during the latter days of my previous term. I shall expect more of those pressures in the upcoming months, so better yet, I shall prepare.

Also, I met up with Mana-chan a while ago. 8D

Random note:

Earlier, I borrowed Orson Scott Card's Lost Boys from our school library. I am amazed by the fact that our library stores such novelty in its shelves. :D I expect to savor the same creative imagination Card's reputed for. I may write some things about the text after I am done reading it.