By Janina Lim, Lifestyle Editor |
The “Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009” imposes penalties that would prevent defiance to “the dignity and privacy of every human person” and “full respect for human rights” the State serves to value and guarantee.
But when the spread of the photo and/or video attempts to thwart this act goes wildfire among the public, the safeguard of the law cannot measure the resistance man’s discretion can do to prevent the leak.
In defense of the scandal-starved public, it might be argued that media is to blame for viral sex videos of celebrity. Media is on account of its ironic method of persuasively marketing stories it condemns. It must be understood, though, that media breathes these stories deemed powerfully capable of drawing the public’s attention in order to survive. It is, after all, a business; grueling and full of tumult. Media is there to inform and persuade. But man is not always expected to be persuaded.
A man of profound reasoning is not a passive being. He does not feed on everything that is served on his plate for he has good discretion of what is edible and what is poison; what is nutritious and what is insalubrious. However, upon recounting the immense interest each of the various luminaries’ sex videos in the past has granted to the public, it tells us society has no men of profound reasoning.
A scandal only becomes a scandal where there is consent from the public. Sex videos of celebrities, after all, are indeed, inevitably scandalous in today’s society, because (a) the videos are casted by public personalities; (b) they involve sex of which media has glamorously feasted upon over the years.
In the case of the most recent epidemic sex video casted by Parokya ni Edgar vocalist, Chito Miranda, and his girlfriend, people have their reasons as to why they viewed the video, let alone shared, broadcasted, sold, and kept a copy. Some point a finger on ‘curiosity’; some, the nature of humanity to worldly pleasures; some, because…
Ironically, there are also those who watch the video only to negatively comment on the involved characters’ defiance of immorality, forgetting that watching the video itself positions them away from a moral standing, only without public scrutiny.
Whatever their reason behind watching the video, we understand that they are liable to whatsoever punishment the law would hold upon them. But are they? The law is no more incapable of preventing the leak of a sex video than it is powerless to castigate each and every one who defied the act.
However, there are such things we call man’s values that are capable to do so; if only high standard values had not been lowered in this present world embellished by sins; a world where entertainment comes from sacrificing the dignity and privacy of others.
Respect for people, whether public figure or not, may not be an obligation to us. But whosoever does so does not only respect those they have regarded highly, but as well as themselves. It is respect for one’s self when you consider having a more sophisticated taste for entertainment than a sex video of a personality. It is respect for you when you do not allow yourself be measured by society’s lowly moral standards. It is respect for oneself when you respect others.
The world may be packed with crowds of Peeping Toms that the decision of an individual to not be one of those does not save celebrities’ sex videos from being a hiatus, let alone lessen.
But you are not to be a hero. You are to respect yourself.