50 shades of graphicality: The constitutionality of the prohibitions on immoral, obscene, and indecent art
Clicks: 1
ID: 285239
2016
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
0.0
/100
1 views
0 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Ranked #2,393 of 3,757 articles by views in Malay Journal
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 3,757 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
The article 201 of the Revised Penal Code penalizes a person for publication of materials considered obscene (such as glorification of crimes, pornography and violence, actions contrary to law or public order, abetting and trafficking of drugs, and offending race and religion). The researchers sought to challenge the constitutionality of the Article for its vagueness (which is a violation of due process), its encroachment on the freedom of speech and expression, and curtailment of free exercise of religion.With this, two state interests were balanced: (a) welfare of the public, at large, on one hand, and (b) artistic freedom of an individual on the other.Based on extensive study, the researchers were able to establish that: (a) Article 201 is in exercise of the state's police power and (b) in principle, the curtailment of speech by Article 201 is not censorship for censorship sake, but is a device to maintain public order by upholding what the public considers as moral. (That the power is abused does not make Article 201 unconstitutional.)Article 201 is under title six of the Revised Penal Code on Crimes Against Public Morals. What is sought to be curbed is not speech per se, but its impact on the public, based on the public's judgement of what is moral. (Morality, after all, is the society's collective judgement.) This is why what is punished is not the utterance of a thought or emotion, but its publication and exhibition. This is because once speech is beyond the realm of the private, i.e., it is made in public, it has an impact which the state, as a matter of policy, considers as disruptive.Therefore, the researchers are of the opinion that the exercise of police power via Article 201 is reasonable. Its purpose is to prevent the expected negative impact of said scenes to the society, and to keep the society in order. However, it is also concluded that encroachment upon rights guaranteed in our Constitution should be restricted in the least possible way, which the challenged penal law is lacking. As a result of this, our proposed law maintains the existence to the purpose of police power, and at the same time sets guidelines on the extent of restrictions that may be made in curtailing our constitutional rights.The researchers came up with the above conclusions through the study of literature on the impact of public speech in the public's behavior, and survey
| Reference Key |
persistent_1760655032_68f176b83080a
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Gonzales, Ana Rose M. |
| Journal | Malay Journal |
| Year | 2016 |
| DOI |
DOI not found
|
| URL | |
| Keywords | Keywords not found |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.