Sec. 4. Acts of Trafficking in Persons. — It shall be unlawful for any person, natural or judicial, to commit any of the following acts.I have to admit, that's pretty straightforward.(e) To maintain or hire a person to engage in prostitution or pornography;
But... don't expect the local government to ride this cybersex-busting parade float for too long:
The Philippines earns $1 billion per year from the sale of pornography. That's #8 in the world, for those of you keeping score. That means that almost 1% of all the money earned in The Philippines is earned through pornography.
To put that in perspective, more money is paid for pornography in The Philippines every year than is spent at Jollibee. (And that doesn't include go-go bars.)
So, although this whole "cybersex den" thing is illegal, do not be surprised, dear readers, when the local government discovers that they have hooked a fish larger than their boat can hold, and these Swedes and their "rescued models" who were rounded up all go home with without the slightest slap on the wrist.
Obviously Jil does not understand how to read the law.
ReplyDeletePornography is not illegal, only compelling a person to produce pornography is prohibited.
(a)Trafficking in Persons — refers to the recruitment, transportation, transfer or harboring, or receipt of persons...by means of threat or use of force, or other forms of coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or of position, taking advantage of the vulnerability of the persons, or, the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person for the purpose of exploitation.
I'm in the pornography business so I know these things.
Furthermore, one of the girls who was "rescued" has been in contact with me looking for work.
Hi Dick,
ReplyDeleteLet's take the original text:
Trafficking in Persons — refers to the recruitment, transportation, transfer or harboring, or receipt of persons with or without the victim's consent or knowledge, within or across national borders by means of threat or use of force, or other forms of coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or of position, taking advantage of the vulnerability of the persons, or, the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person for the purpose of exploitation which includes at a minimum, the exploitation or the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery, servitude or the removal or sale of organs.
Now, let's only leave in the parts of that clause that might apply to a cybersex business:
Trafficking in Persons refers to the recruitment of persons with the victim's consent or knowledge within national borders by means of taking advantage of the vulnerability of the persons for the purpose of sexual exploitation.
Trim again the extraneous parts for simplicity's sake:
Trafficking in Persons refers to the recruitment of persons by means of taking advantage of the vulnerability of the persons for the purpose of sexual exploitation.
There... now we're cooking with gas.
OK, obviously there are two terms here that matter: "Taking advantage... for sexual exploitation", and "vulnerability". Those definitions would be up to the presiding judge in a case against a cybersex business operator. If the judge is anti-porn, obviously that operator would be up shit-creek without a paddle.
Let's skip that and assume that the judge is more open minded.
The prosecuting attorney would claim that paying a girl to sit in front of a camera and perform sex acts is "taking advantage of [her] ... for sexual exploitation." That is definitely an argument that the defense could easily lose.
The best definition I could find for "sexual exploitation" is "All situations where a person in a position of power, authority or in control of resources seeks or accepts to provide protection, assistance or service in exchange for sexual acts or favours. Again, let's simplify: [W]here a person in a position of power [provides] assistance in exchange for sexual acts.
With "person in position of power" being the cybersex business operator, and "assistance" being a salary... it would be pretty tough to argue against the prosecution's reasoning.
The second more important term is "vulnerability." Here, the prosecutor would state that "vulnerability" could be anything from "poor" to "misguided" to "unemployed." The argument "nobody in their right mind" would come up. Again: Another argument the defense could easily lose: The poor and destitute are described every day as "vulnerable"... they certainly would use that term to describe the girls working in a cybersex business.
Anyway, in conclusion, I'll agree that the wording of the law is not as cut and dry as I first read, but it is far-far-far from a can't-touch-this situation. And... any pornographer in The Philippines who winds up in a courtroom porno v. public situation, shouldn't expect for a minute that a clever legal interpretation is going to get any mileage over politics and posturing.
Also, make sure to read my first post on this subject: I am glad that some of the girls from that place are finding safe employment with you. Just make sure you keep doing whatever it is you do to stay open.
And Dick, one more thing: Hopefully this example of not just my interpretation of the law... but twisting it around to the point where it sits up on its hind legs and barks... puts to rest any further question that I might not know how to "read the law". :-)
OK, well, fair enough, everything is arguable. You know how to read the law. In your initial post you left out the definition of Human Trafficking in your attempt to argue that pornography itself is illegal.
ReplyDeleteNow allow me to correct myself:
Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code, "Indecent Shows" does make pornography illegal in the PI. So in a round about way you are correct.
Article 201 is a somewhat archaic, pre-internet, 1974 Ferdinand Marcos decree. I would believe that it's very arguable that in order for someone to be found guilty under Article 201, the "Indecent Show" would have to be viewed in the PI. Please keep in mind that virtually all of the cyber sex is for foreign consumption, after all, for $1.99 a minute you could get several real girls in the PI, so why pay that to watch one on a screen?
Having said that, it's very easy for the NBI to go online and record a girl which would have the "Indecent Show" originate and be viewed in the PI.
Also please consider that "sexy stars" and "bold stars" as they are called operate out in the open, holding celebrity status and are often photographed with Senator boyfriends. There is an adult film industry in Manila complete with adult film stars. Their work is easily viewed on the internet and I understand that there are also XXX theaters in operation as well.
Article 201 provides for jail time OR a fine of up to P12,000. I guarantee you that all cases are plea deals for the fine. If they didn't accept a plea deal for the fine I would go to a jury trial and embarrass them by showing the jury hours and hours and days and days of XXX film from Manila and show the porn stars with their Senator boyfriends for days and days.