Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 169 views

    Pita Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Dana Denisse Ricaplaza
    The Metropolitan Police Force of Manila seized and burned magazines they believed to be obscene, including issues of "Pinoy Playboy". The publisher, Leo Pita, filed a case seeking to enjoin further confiscation and prevent the disruption of sales. Pita claimed the magazine was not obscene and was protected under freedom of speech and press. The court established a three-part test to determine if material is obscene: if it appeals to prurient interest, depicts sexual conduct offensively, and lacks serious value. The court would use this test to rule on whether "Pinoy Playboy" was considered obscene.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Pita Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Dana Denisse Ricaplaza
    169 views1 page
    The Metropolitan Police Force of Manila seized and burned magazines they believed to be obscene, including issues of "Pinoy Playboy". The publisher, Leo Pita, filed a case seeking to enjoin further confiscation and prevent the disruption of sales. Pita claimed the magazine was not obscene and was protected under freedom of speech and press. The court established a three-part test to determine if material is obscene: if it appeals to prurient interest, depicts sexual conduct offensively, and lacks serious value. The court would use this test to rule on whether "Pinoy Playboy" was considered obscene.

    Original Description:

    n/a

    Original Title

    Pita vs CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Metropolitan Police Force of Manila seized and burned magazines they believed to be obscene, including issues of "Pinoy Playboy". The publisher, Leo Pita, filed a case seeking to enjoin further confiscation and prevent the disruption of sales. Pita claimed the magazine was not obscene and was protected under freedom of speech and press. The court established a three-part test to determine if material is obscene: if it appeals to prurient interest, depicts sexual conduct offensively, and lacks serious value. The court would use this test to rule on whether "Pinoy Playboy" was considered obscene.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    169 views1 page

    Pita Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Dana Denisse Ricaplaza
    The Metropolitan Police Force of Manila seized and burned magazines they believed to be obscene, including issues of "Pinoy Playboy". The publisher, Leo Pita, filed a case seeking to enjoin further confiscation and prevent the disruption of sales. Pita claimed the magazine was not obscene and was protected under freedom of speech and press. The court established a three-part test to determine if material is obscene: if it appeals to prurient interest, depicts sexual conduct offensively, and lacks serious value. The court would use this test to rule on whether "Pinoy Playboy" was considered obscene.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    Pita vs.

    Court of Appeals
    G.R. No. 80806, October 5, 1989
    Facts:
    Pursuing an Anti-Smut Campaign, members of the Metropolitan Police Force of Manila seized
    and confiscated from dealers, distributors, newsstand owners and peddlers along Manila
    sidewalks magazines, publications and other reading materials believed to be obscene,
    pornographic and indecent. Said materials were burned in public, including Pinoy Playboy
    whose co-editor and publisher is the petitioner, Leo Pita.
    plaintiff filed a case for injunction with prayer for issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction
    against Mayor Bagatsing and Narcisco Cabrera, as superintendent of Western Police District of
    the City of Manila, seeking to enjoin and/or restrain said defendants and their agents from
    confiscating plaintiffs magazines or from otherwise preventing the sale or circulation thereof
    claiming that the magazine is a decent, artistic and educational magazine which is not per se
    obscene, and that the publication is protected by the Constitutional guarantees of freedom of
    speech and of the press.

    plaintiff filed an Urgent Motion for issuance of a temporary restraining order. against
    indiscriminate seizure, confiscation and burning of plaintiff's "Pinoy Playboy" Magazines,
    pending hearing on the petition for preliminary injunction. Such restraining order was granted.
    defendant Mayor Bagatsing admitted the confiscation and burning of obscene reading materials,
    but claimed that the said materials were voluntarily surrendered by the vendors to the police
    authorities and that petitioners establishment was not raided.
    Issue:
    Whether or not petitioners Pinoy Playboy is considered obscene
    Ruling:
    To test whether a material is obscene, as to constitute a clear and present danger, which would
    be a valid ground for restraining the freedom of expression:
    (a) whether the average person, applying contemporary standards would find the work, taken
    as a whole appeals to the prurient interest.
    (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct
    specifically defined by the applicable state law.
    (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy