This is not the porn you were looking for.
Why should we care about the guy who the National Bureau of Investigation alleges was the first to upload the Hayden Kho-Katrina Halili videos onto the Internet? (or about Hayden Kho and Katrina Halili at all, if you think about it.)
Hayden Kho is already on the path to forgiveness, blaming everything from being molested as a child to having been cheated on for leading him to the act of secretly videotaping himself having sex.
Katrina Halili’s career, allegedly destroyed by the videos, is already back on track, and is probably stronger than ever. So is Maricar Reyes’ career, apparently. Although she never had to go through the media circus that was the Senate hearing on the issue, but she was never that famous to start with.
Sen. Ramon Revilla, Jr. has already milked the issue for all its political pogi points, coming out of it every bit the macho gentleman.
The Hayden Kho-Katrina Halili is all but forgotten, so who cares if “Mike Chanco” of adult-entertainment blog Flesh Asia Daily 2.0 has been charged with violating Art.201 of the Revised Penal Code?
“Mike” may (or may not) have been the first to upload the video, but he didn’t spread it himself. That ball was in the court of everyone, senator or not, who downloaded the video and passed it on. But who cares about “Mike Chanco”? He’s a pervert and a smut peddler, amirite?
He might well be, if he loses the case. But if you’re a blogger, and you write about (or against) government, you might find yourself sharing a cell with the guy over writing things that “are contrary to law, public order, morals, good customs, established policies, lawful orders, decrees and edicts.”
It’s not about porn per se. I mean, that’s clearly illegal, and we’ll have to see whether the videos being stored in an off-shore server will be enough to keep him out of jail.
It is, however, about Internet freedom. As “Mike” himself says, the case “may serve as a basis for future shit. Really murky shit.” What constitutes violation of “public order” or “morals,” for example?
Does supporting the “immoral” Reproductive Health bill count? Does calling President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo a douchebag qualify as a violation? What about inciting others to rally and demand for her resignation? What about offensive and politically-incorrect jokes?
–
Flesh Asia Daily 2.0 is asking for donations for their legal fund. Donate, if you’re inclined.
Or join the discussion: Does prosecuting “Mike Chanco” have any bearing on our freedoms,or am I overreacting and going down a slippery slope on a high horse? Did you see the Hayden Kho videos? What did you think of them?
Remember, there are no wrong answers, only ones that don’t make sense.
(UPDATE: Jester In Exile is on a higher horse at his blog.)
(MOAR!: Jester explains how the NBI may have fucked up.)
#1 by FreeSince09 at July 11th, 2009
| Quote
Jesus Christ, I should write about this in well everywhere but hot dang! These Senate assholes should be doing something else. And you can’t tell me the NBI doesn’t enjoy FAD
#2 by onetamad at July 12th, 2009
| Quote
It’s gone beyond the Senate now, I think. They’ve all but forgotten about it.
#3 by eric cruz at July 12th, 2009
| Quote
Indolent indio i’ve read your post with regards to the FAD scandal. In all honesty I believe it’s an eye opener to laws that need to be promulgated and the growing lack of attention given to these “sites”
I followed your arguments but what I do not get is this jester and his long post about well actually i dont get it. do you?
Let me share with you my thoughts on this jester in exile:
This is an example of a guy who clearly sound not be a lawyer. God knows with this kind of logic what will happen if he is given power. He’s telling us that because FAD cleary says its an adult site its okay for it to run. I’m not talking about just Katrina and Hayden here, I’m talking about all the victims (beastiality pics/scandals, minors, jailbaits, etc.)
He wrote in a superior format blatantly using legal words to make his discussion. Most people don’t get it. Not because we are stupid when it comes to the law but because his logic is perverted and twisted for that matter.
The law should be ever changing with the times. Our forefathers never knew that there will be a thing called the internet wherein people can “share” porn files and get away with it since they are saying that they are an adult site.
He uses his logic to twist the scenario in favor of FAD.
Why should we believe him when there has been instances wherein he had shown his fallibility when it comes to the law.
Yes sir I’ve researched about Jester and all I can say is that the day he becomes a lawyer is the day the bar system needs to be upgraded.
References to Jester FYI:
Jornalist vs Bloggers… Blog comments (a must read!!)
http://filipinovoices.com/yeah-whatever
Jester threatened someone with a wrong law:
http://www.gameops.net/2008/09/my-thoughts-on-philippine-blog-awards-2.html
Jester credibility in question:
http://jepoy.bengero.com/2008/12/truth-will-set-you-free.html
http://reynaelena.com/2008/09/26/jesters-entry-is-full-lies
—–
To Jester:
FAD is a Filipino owned site you dipshit and no going around is going to change that. You dumb fuck you remind me of an ugly lawyer who defends evil people in movies.
And why should NBI go after Japanese AV sites that you frequent? You are making an ass out of yourself
tangina mo feeling mo logical ka magisip baluktot ka naman gago
maliit titi mo at malamang maitim!!! itlog mo nognog gago
nagpapaka matalino ka matsing ka naman sana kung nasa panig ka ng tama tarantado.
#4 by the jester-in-exile at July 12th, 2009
| Quote
onetamad, et tu?
“eric cruz”, LOL.
#5 by eric cruz at July 12th, 2009
| Quote
“jester-in-exile”, uLOL
#6 by reyna elena at July 12th, 2009
| Quote
i have proof that that asshole will cut and paste and would come up with his own fkin conclusion. anong school ba sa recto nag-aral ang ulol na yan?!
an tawag dun TWISTED.
#7 by matinik at July 12th, 2009
| Quote
*eats popcorn*
#8 by onetamad at July 12th, 2009
| Quote
@jester (in exile): Naw, I’m with you. This case has far-reaching implications. I’m also with you on their having rights.
I’m not saying the FAD guys are pornographers, and that we shouldn’t care about them. They will be pornographers, though, if they lose the case.
I didn’t want to get into what constitutes porn because, come on, dude, the Hayden videos were pretty porny. Not all of FAD, probably, just the videos.
#9 by Filo at July 12th, 2009
| Quote
Classic divide between legal and moral. Hell yeah there’s a difference, but i’m not for heavy-handed verbal sparring. I do think that the law must be consistent, that what it considers FAD to be – one that violates existing mores – then a whole lot of locally published glossy smut should be treated in at least a similar fashion (i.e., i do not suggest the reverse where if law enforcement won’t go after FHM then it shouldn’t go after FAD).
That’s the thing with mores- they’re absolute, if they’re defined. Now, defending what’s legal in complete ignorance of what’s moral – this is where I spit at the system. I think Jester’s gonna lose quite a few readers because of the way he “lawyered” the issue. Heck I’m no expert, but I can’t stomach defending an offender with “There is no crime if there has been no law enacted,” tantamount to letting it go because legislators failed to cover everything.
#10 by onetamad at July 12th, 2009
| Quote
@Filo: It’s true, though. What the law doesn’t prohibit, it allows, pretty much. I think it’s in Latin, too.
B-But, it’s about the rights of man, isn’t it? On Jester’s blog, people have been going ape shit about “Mike Chanco” not having any rights because he’s a “pornographer.”
I haven’t seen the charge sheet or the actual complaint, but I’m pretty sure the dude is innocent until the court says otherwise.
#11 by Monty Dean at July 12th, 2009
| Quote
Implication: There’s a huge separation possible between what’s right and what’s allowed by existing laws.
Implication: That morals cannot be defended unless spelled out and codified.
Implication: The attorneys of at least one side of every legal battle argue/fight/defend without accountability or liability, but instead, with their supposed professional interpretation of the law for that given time/context/client which means how they pitch the law depends less on what is the law and more on who they represent.
Am I logical? I’d like to think so.
Am I cynical? Sure, but I’m no prophet of doom.
Can I make the same arguments as jester did? As myself, nope. But as FAD’s hired attorney (which I’m glad I’m not), I’d probably have to.
Did that make sense?
#12 by onetamad at July 12th, 2009
| Quote
@eric cruz: I’m not an FAD fan, but I’m pretty sure there is no bestiality or naked minors on the site. Their readers would have shut them down themselves if they had that.
#13 by Filo at July 12th, 2009
| Quote
@onetamad:
Odd thing being told to not have any rights by other people when their morals are violated.
Napaisip tuloy ako: So in the same line of thinking, the same commenters would argue that PGMA has no rights because they’re pretty darn convinced she’s guilty of any and all allegations of wrongdoing – all prior to any formal trial/investigation – ja?
Rightfully, though unpopularly, for fairness’s sake, it STILL must be upheld that one is innocent until proven guilty. Otherwise we’d all be in trouble in one form or another.
#14 by onetamad at July 12th, 2009
| Quote
@Filo: You’re right. And PGMA, for all her douchebaggery is innocent until proven guilty. In court, at least. Which should also go for the FAD guys. The haters can hate him all they want, but they can’t say that they have no rights.
Or worse, as a commenter on Jester In Exile wrote, “kahit na walang batas na maaaring kasuhan sa kanila, tama lang na ikulong sila, para may masampolan na”
#15 by onetamad at July 12th, 2009
| Quote
@Monty Dean: That makes sense.That’s pretty much what lawyers do, I think. Lawyering.
PS: Are you a lawyer?
#16 by Monty Dean at July 12th, 2009
| Quote
@onetamad:If I were, I’d be in trouble for making “Hitt-chuh!” and “Ay, sus!”
Ps. Why do you ask? Did I throw it like Chiz?
#17 by Filo at July 12th, 2009
| Quote
Word for the day: LAWYER.
Used in a sentence: “Oh no, I think I just stepped on a pile of lawyer.”
#18 by Filo at July 12th, 2009
| Quote
If Monty Dean is a lawyer, and he still has the time to make animated pictures of PGMA, business must be down, eh? I’m obnoxious.
#19 by eric cruz at July 13th, 2009
| Quote
@onetamad
yes FAD is guilty of child porn or in Philippine law terminologies, a violation of RA 7610
don’t take my word for it. see for yourself
http://fleshasiadaily.com/2009/04/14/video-davao-central-high-schools-interweb-famous-student-joanna-yamuta/
#20 by onetamad at July 13th, 2009
| Quote
@eric cruz: The link to the actual video is down,so I didn’t see it. But judging from the title, it probably was some high school girl on the video. So, point taken.
#21 by onetamad at July 13th, 2009
| Quote
@Monty Dean: It’d just be cooler if you were, because that would make you a renaissance man.
@Filo: To be fair, there are decent lawyers out there. I hope to be one someday.
#22 by matinik at July 13th, 2009
| Quote
Man, what the hell is the debate here? If you don’t like porn, GTFO my Internet. Moralfags.
#23 by Filo at July 13th, 2009
| Quote
@matinik: give me that popcorn and get back to doing your homework, young man! no masturbating for a month!
@onetamad & monty dean: point taken. sorry. so there! (cynical)
*eats the popcorn*
#24 by Mistervader at July 13th, 2009
| Quote
This situation definitely bears watching. That\’s all I can say about it for now. I\’m just amused at how there seems to be a need to resort to ad hominem attacks over this topic by certain commenters.
#25 by onetamad at July 13th, 2009
| Quote
@mistervader: Verily, I say unto you, there are more ad hominems here than actual arguments.
#26 by Monty Dean at July 13th, 2009
| Quote
That is cool, eh? The lawyer who makes the president sneeze endlessly with run-of-the-mill gif rendering.
I’d consider myself a true renaissance man if I could put that animation on a shirt. Coolest thing. (I know the tech exists but the costs are prohibitive.)
#27 by wddewp at July 14th, 2009
| Quote
Ang tanga naman ni Eric Cruz. Patayin na yan.
#28 by thewatcher at July 14th, 2009
| Quote
That “eric cruz” is a dumbass. One egotistical dumbass that trolls in another blog, then posts comments in another that threaten that other blogger’s reputation by posting shit. Just to get back at the said blogger and to justify his shit.
Halatang halata kung sino yung troll dun sa blog ni Jester eh.
Oh and he’s just asking for it.
I’d say more, but one line answers all his lame statements.
WELCOME TO THE INTERNET, NEWFAG.
Ad hominem end. Now don’t lawyer at me, lawyers.
#29 by danny at July 14th, 2009
| Quote
Hey eric,
FAD only provide for the links. They do not manufacture porns. Its like FAD saying “hey there’s a new sex scandal out there or there’s a hot new sex vid in the net. Wanna download or see it? Click here for the link.” It basically informs then provides for the link. I don’t think that it qualifies as a porn site comparable to youporn and other sites out there wherein you can watch all the porn you want outright.
Also, are you a judge to say that FAD is guilty of child pornography?
#30 by onetamad at July 14th, 2009
| Quote
@thewatcher: I think I know who it is, too. I even think that FAD is a side-issue to a bigger beef between two bloggers.
#31 by jepoy at July 14th, 2009
| Quote
@indio/onetamad – I’ve known JB via some previous online business transactions and I know that he operates FAD. I’ll not be a hypocrite, I visit FAD atleast once a week and I know that sooner or later, some bozo from our govt will hunt him down just to have someone “arrested”. Well, looked what happened.
Anyway, I found this post from a few dozen incoming links to my blog and GameOPS. Though this issue regarding me, Rocky, Siopao Master, and Reyna Elena with Jester the Liar has been in null for the past few months, I won’t be quiet if the fingers start pointing.
If I am to follow Jester-the-Liar around the intarwebs and wait for his apology, then I’ll do so using my name and not some via anonymous crap…. and so do my friends. {paranoia}So, before you (Jester-the-Liar) start pointing your dirty fingers towards us, F*CK YOU!{/paranoia}
@eric cruz – if you have(had) issues with this asswipe named Jester, then use them. Don’t drag us with your anonymity. If you don’t have the balls to identify yourself with your issues with him then better STFU. But but but…. I do love your last words about the zero-credibility-liar-clown :~)
#32 by eric cruz at July 15th, 2009
| Quote
So what if I have morals Mr. Matinik? The question is do you?
Anybody can say i’m stupid but can you support your statements wddewp?
Jepoy, I use my anonimity because that prick is a menace to society and he needs to hear it from somebody. So what if im scared of him? Anybody who has seen this asshole will be scared of him.
For every other loser who came from the FAD link who’s so affected I suggest you get a life.
You are protecting something that shouldnt be tolerated. Some of you guys have a point Mike Chanco is indeed innocent til proven guilty. All im pissed at is people who whitewash the truth.
Hear that asshole? yeah Jester in fucking exile thats you. Im watching you.
#33 by matinik at July 15th, 2009
| Quote
Of course I have morals! For example, I only have sex with children if they totally agree. See? Paragon of virtue.
I just don’t impose my morals on everyone else. Because that would make me an annoying moralfag. Like you.
And for someone who’s against obscenity, you sure have a dirty mouth. But no worries, hypocrisy and moralfaggotry go hand-in-hand.
#34 by wddewp at July 15th, 2009
| Quote
“Eric cruz: anybody can say i’m stupid but can you support your statements wddewp?”"
*I don’t have to. Your posts reek of stupidity.
“Eric Cruz: For every other loser who came from the FAD link who’s so affected I suggest you get a life.”
*You browse FAD too, you hypocrite.
“Eric Cruz: You are protecting something that shouldnt be tolerated. Some of you guys have a point Mike Chanco is indeed innocent til proven guilty. All im pissed at is people who whitewash the truth.”
*If there’s anybody who shouldn’t be protected by the law, it’s self righteous bigots like you. For all I know, you probably secretly jack off to meatspin and genital mutilation videos.
*My apologies to everyone but Eric, I’m just trolling the troll.
#35 by the jester-in-exile at July 15th, 2009
| Quote
preno, wddewp, easy there. even self-righteous bigots *should* be protected by law. that’s what equal protection under the law is all about.
jepoy, “eric cruz”, LOL.
#36 by matinik at July 15th, 2009
| Quote
Marry me, wddewp.
#37 by Mistervader at July 15th, 2009
| Quote
Man, the 2008 Philippine Blog Awards is soooooo 2000 and late. Can we move on and do more productive things now, already? Sheesh.
This issue of a person’s civil rights being trampled upon? Current issues.
A spat between two bloggers a year ago? Yesterday’s news.
Priorities, gais!
#38 by onetamad at July 15th, 2009
| Quote
More productive things like nominating and voting for this blog, for example.
Indolent/Indio ‘09!
#39 by reyna elena at July 15th, 2009
| Quote
2,231,400 <—- ALEXA RANK nang BLOGGER LIAR
Conclusion: Kelangan nya nang haplos nang Reyna para maging 8.4 million readers den sya.
Agree with what Jepoy said. It's not really fair that you're anonymous. Thanks for the link. This is all for now. Kaya nyo ang liar na yan. Kayang kaya nyo. Pag hindi, tawagin nyo lang si DARNA at darating ako.
#40 by eric cruz at July 15th, 2009
| Quote
@matinik You are contradicting yourself idiot. I never impose my morals on anybody what i’m against is people who whitewash the truth. even though they are not people.
@wddewp It’s not you have to, its you cant dipshit. I never said I didn’t browse FAD my arguments are about people who whitewash the truth. See more examples of your stupidy.
What an idiot. Also what the hell is meatspin you dumb fuck?
@jester Wow thanks jester you’re a really nice guy..not. Go to hell, if you look in the mirror you’d realize you belong there.
@Mistervader what the hell are you talking about? fuck you just for good measure.
#41 by Inglorious Mustard at July 16th, 2009
| Quote
i’ll just leave this here for eric cruz…
http://www.meatspin.com/
#42 by wddewp at July 16th, 2009
| Quote
“Eric=@wddewp It’s not you have to, its you cant dipshit. I never said I didn’t browse FAD my arguments are about people who whitewash the truth. See more examples of your stupidy.
What an idiot. Also what the hell is meatspin you dumb fuck?”
*Mali-mali ang grammar mo. Nakakahiya.
#43 by jepoy at July 16th, 2009
| Quote
@mistervader – I think this issue between Jester and me shouldn’t have been dragged here. If Eric “Chua?” Cruz has problems with Jester then so be it, just don’t drag me (or reyna elena) into this. NANAHIMIK AKO.
If this Eric guy didn’t post the link to one of my blogs and this Jester didn’t start getting paranoid about his enemies (ex. me… “captain’s and queens” pala ha), eh di wala ako dito. Ngayon yung mga anonymous pa sa blogs nya eh nagpopost ng links papasok ng GameOPS. Inuulit ko, NANANAHIMIK KAMI.
Yesterday’s news…yes… if he would have said sorry though. Pero hindi pa, so technically “current” issue pa din ito for us. Don’t tell me, hindi priority to finally “resolve” a case then mag apologize ang mali. Kalimutan nalang ba?
Hindi kasi ikaw or kayo yung nakakatanggap ng mga negative repercussions like lost readers or enemies from different groups just because of that negative and inaccurate post from Jester. Gawan ka ba naman ng kasinungalingan, hindi ka ba magrereact? Dibale sana kung tama pinagsusulat nyang mokong na yan eh, kaso puro fabricated lies.
@onetamad – sorry for this OT comment… last na to promise, unless they have more to say.
Sure, inonominate na kita ngayon
)
#44 by anonymark at July 16th, 2009
| Quote
@mrvader your such a bitch!
#45 by onetamad at July 16th, 2009
| Quote
@reyna elena: wow, you have 8.4 million readers? Th-that’s more than all the newspapers combined! Good job!
#46 by eric cruz at July 16th, 2009
| Quote
if i have issues i’m gonna take it down like a real man! and not pretending that i’m a good lawyer by using legal terms
@jepoy can i suck your dick? i need to be fucked in the ass so bad… i’ll just be on my webcam all day playing with my weener
#47 by reyna elena at July 16th, 2009
| Quote
my previous comment was not posted. but i don’t have 8.4 million readers a day. that’s what i am trying to beat. hehehe.
the 8.4 million blogger is here: http://reynaelena.com/2009/03/20/someone-on-filipino-voices-is-testing-the-waters-to-sabotage-me-by-impersonating-me/
#48 by onetamad at July 16th, 2009
| Quote
@ Reyna Elena: Apologies. It went into the spam folder by mistake. It’s up now.
#49 by onetamad at July 16th, 2009
| Quote
So… Does anyone feel like discussing the issue of how this affects our rights? Anyone? At all?
#50 by Monty Dean at July 16th, 2009
| Quote
You’ve already said it.
“…if you’re a blogger, and you write about (or against) government, you might find yourself sharing a cell with the guy over writing things that ‘are contrary to law, public order, morals, good customs, established policies, lawful orders, decrees and edicts.’ “
Who decides what things you can and cannot write about? You can’t let anyone else determine that for you.
Just about anything you could write about in an honest, even irreverent way, could set off somebody out there to go apeshit on you and misconstrue all you’ve spoken about as “offensive” or “contrary to good customs,” whatever that could mean. Worse, someone is misinterpreting your words for you and you go to prison for it. Oh, the incidence of douchebaggery, like Richard Gutierrez’s filed case against PEP (which everybody with at least half a brain sees as an attempt to make a quick buck, even their own attorney, but I won’t get into that), will increase dramatically.
It’s exactly why our laws are codified: because everything else is fair game for subjective treatment and manipulation. Precedents would come in handy, but they’re argued against nonetheless (because hey, what are lawyers for, right?). What happens when there are none? Ah, murky waters indeed.
Anyway, the scary implication is that, anything you say can and will be used against you, even if you were rightfully expressing dissent and simply demanding accountability. Do you want those in power to go after you for criticizing them? Of course, not. Blogging under a different name can’t protect you from someone who has enough resources to silence you, so you could go underground, or you could shut up altogether – either way they’ve taken your voice from you. While you’re silent and they get the far larger “share-of-voice,” their lies will prevail.
You wouldn’t want our country to treat voices of dissent like North Korea and China do. Even I can’t comment like this (or even post my animated pics at your other article Political ads) if my freedom of speech were limited like that.
#51 by the jester-in-exile at July 17th, 2009
| Quote
@monty dean:
Nods. That’s a fair approximation of prior restraint and therefore anathema to the idea of freedom of expression. No law, court, nor private citizen has the right nor privilege to coerce you to write stuff that you don’t want to write. Those who attempt to do such coercion follow in the footsteps of Torquemada, in a manner of speaking, by burning at the stake those who don’t cleave to their demands.
Also, IIRC, there are some law enforcement writers and analysts who say that those who shoot journalists over articles written are those who are frustrated by that constitutional guarantee.
To stay on topic without going to the bigger picture that will cross over to dissent and demands for accountability (a concern you are correct to point out), a gentle caution: our existing laws (like Article 201) provide for the concepts of “indecent”, “obscene”, and “pornographic”, despite the fact that their definitions have not been codified clearly.
There are some proposals (like the “Anti- Cyber Boso” bill in Congress), even in other jurisdictions (such as the recently shot-down obscenity bill in Florida, IIRC) — apparently because of the lobbying of the religious right and similar — but since there’s been no real success in legislation to date, the most we can rely on is the Miller vs. State of California case for precedent… which your rightly point out can be argued for or against, as its own definition is, using your words, murky. (Some lawyers prefer the term “flexible”. I think Miller vs. CA is a bit of a cop-out myself, but it’s the precedent even our courts recognize.)
#52 by onetamad at July 18th, 2009
| Quote
But surely some sort of balance must be made? We can’t just put anything we want online and claim freedom of speech (or similar.) Can we?
#53 by the jester-in-exile at July 18th, 2009
| Quote
@onetamad — simplistics: who has jurisdiction over the internet? he who does can draw the line, similar to a country having jurisdiction over what it can consider indecent for its citizens.
of course, it’s really not that simple, and even Article 19, Paragraph 3 of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights recognizes two exceptions. note that public morals is a recognized concept.
#54 by eric cruz at July 24th, 2009
| Quote
I got posers? After all your strong arguments resorting to this shit? Lame.
#55 by Stuart Oca at July 24th, 2009
| Quote
Guys, what’s eric talking about now? Posers??
#56 by onetamad at July 26th, 2009
| Quote
*shrug*