Sunday, February 23, 2014
.JPG)
Insta Scoop: Zsa Zsa Padilla Affected on Karylle Tatlonghari - Vice Ganda Issue
Image courtesy of Instagram: zsazsapadilla
Insta Scoop: Is It All's Well That Ends Well Between Karylle Tatlonghari and Vice Ganda?
Image courtesy of Instagram: anakarylle
Insta Scoop: Ces Drilon and Ricky Carandang at the Art Fair
Like or Dislike: Cast of 'Diary ng Panget' the Movie
Images courtesy of Instagram: vivaartistsagency
Fairest of Them All: Jessica Soho, Ruffa Gutierrez and Gloria Diaz
Image courtesy of Instagram: iloveruffag
Who Wore It Better: Carmina Villaroel vs Judy Ann santos
Image courtesy of Instagram: apartment8clothing
Saturday, February 22, 2014
Best of Friends No More
Image courtesy of www.waitingwithjoy.com
People know that FG, NI, and YF were very close, and that YF has benefitted much from the connections of FG and NI. YF and FG are even neighbors. Others view the relationship of YF and FG as that of a mentor and an understudy, although YF has already built his name in the fashion circles. While the name of FG is highly acclaimed here and abroad, YF is popular among the stars of the networks. However, some of his designs have been observed to be similar with that of international designers. Nonetheless, the stylish still avail of the services of YF.
So, what could have severed their relationship? Friendships of designers often break because of money problems, love choices, plagiarism of designs, and mistrust. In the case of YF and FG, their friendship was wrecked by the uncouth behavior of YF towards FG. Under the influence of alcohol, YF went from his balcony to the balcony of the home of FG to sexually harass someone close to the heart of FG. Allegedly, YF has been doing this act several times in other places as well, and several of his victims have come out in the open when this incident came out.
To prevent instances of becoming victims of the crazy antics of YF, FG and NI dropped him personally and professionally. To show he was very serious, FG installed barbed wires around his house, especially around the balcony area. This incident has embarrassingly revealed part of the personality of YF, and his behavior might soon lead to more detrimental effects unless he seriously considers a change in lifestyle. YF must realize that combining drugs and alcohol with his fame and fortune can destroy his reputation and his talent. Many designers as well as celebrities have lost everything to drugs and alcohol. Will YF waste his chance and continue a path towards self-destruction?
“The truly scary thing about undiscovered lies is that they have a greater capacity to diminish us than exposed ones.” ― Cheryl Hughes
Follow @FashionPulis on Twitter for the latest update. Please continue to send your juicy stories to michaelsylim@gmail.com. Thank you very much for loving Fashion PULIS!
Disclaimer: The comments of the readers do not reflect the views and opinions of Fashion PULIS.
Hottest of Them All: Daniel Padilla, Enrique Gil and Robi Domingo
Image courtesy of Instagram: asapofficial
Fairest of Them All: Angeline Quinto, Klarisse de Guzman and Morissette Amon
Image courtesy of Instagram: bangpineda
Who Wore It Better: Carla Abellana vs Venus Raj in Eric Delos Santos
Image courtesy of Instagram: ericdelosantos
.png)
Friday, February 21, 2014
“Daddy” Gets Even
Image courtesy of www.daisymoondesigns.com.uk
A successful relationship between the talent and the manager can go sour if one party goes astray. The talent could realize he/she is being stifled by the demands of the manager or the network, and thus, seek freedom. Meanwhile, a younger or yummier newbie could be the new apple of the eye of the manager or insider, and thus, the former talent could be left out in the cold.
For instance, Generous Manager (GM) has an eye for the talent who can bring in attention and the sponsors for the network. Having been in the business for a time and having remained loyal to his network, GM has the reputation of building the careers of several of the network’s talents. Once a talent in under the wing of GM, that talent is assured of the best projects, a fat paycheck, and glory from adoring fans. Nonetheless, there is always payback, and that goes beyond mere cuts from the paycheck.
GM has been enamored with two young talents of his network. YT1 and YT2 are both good dancers, have athletic physiques, refreshing faces, and shrieking female fans. YT1 and YT2 always look good on screen and the fans know that both have more to give in terms of their acting talents. After all, both have been paired with the female talents of their network successfully. On top of that, YT1 and YT2 are well loved in and out of showbusiness, and are professional in work. So fond was GM of these two, that both have been part of the acclaimed projects of their network. Of course, GM had his separate personal encounters with YT1 and YT2.
Unknown to GM, something was happening with YT1 and YT2 while both were involved in a project for the network. Their series ran shorter than the usual length, which left followers in the dark. While YT1 and YT2 had benefitted from the generous actions of GM, they were also careful in hiding their alleged truth from GM. Allegedly, YT1 and YT2 did something that did not include GM in the picture. Some tongues are wagging that the real reason why the project was cut was that GM realized YT1 and YT2 were fooling around behind his back. Will YT1 and YT2 ever work in a project together? Your guess will be as good as ours.
Not everyone will appreciate what you do to them…You have to figure out who’s worth your kindness and who’s just taking advantage. – Author Unknown
Follow @FashionPulis on Twitter for the latest update. Please continue to send your juicy stories to michaelsylim@gmail.com. Thank you very much for loving Fashion PULIS!
Disclaimer: The comments of the readers do not reflect the views and opinions of Fashion PULIS.
John Lloyd Cruz Rushed to Hospital After Mt. Pinatubo Accident
Image courtesy of www.en.wikipedia.org
Source: www.entertainment.inquirer.net
“John Lloyd Cruz had a minor bike accident during a shoot and he has undergone immediate medical treatment. He is fine and in good condition. The results have come out clear and Cruz was eventually discharged,” Tess Gubi of Star Magic said in a statement.
Cruz was brought to a nearby hospital where he was made to undergo tests, such as X-ray and CT scan. The results have come out clear and Cruz was eventually discharged.
Gubi denied earlier reports that Cruz’s girlfriend Angelica Panganiban, although present in the shooting, was also involved in the accident.
“Angelica was present in the shoot but was not part of the scene and not involved in the accident,” she said.
As of posting time, the actor was on his way to Manila.
Calling Sen. Tito Sotto an Idiot is No Cybercrime
Image courtesy of www.philnews.ph
Source: www.opinion.inquirer.net
It is a disgraceful indictment that we have forgotten that libel is but an exception to the fundamental rule that is free speech. We have likewise forgotten that the most basic reason for free speech is to voice honest criticism of officials, even in ways vulgar, unkind, or even untrue. In the classic words of Dean and Justice George Malcolm: “Complete liberty to comment on the conduct of public men is a scalpel in the case of free speech. The sharp incision of its probe relieves the abscesses of officialdom. Men in public life may suffer under a hostile and an unjust accusation; the wound can be assuaged with the balm of a clear conscience. A public officer must not be too thin-skinned with reference to comment upon his official acts.”
This revered formulation means that calling Sotto an idiot for his damnable insertion cannot be libel absent “actual malice,” which sincere disagreement with a law cannot be. This is a hallowed constitutional principle that not even a thousand Cybercrime Acts can erode.
Unfortunately, there is a fair legal reason for letting Sotto’s insertion stand. The Cybercrime Act merely refers to the circa 1930 Revised Penal Code’s definition of libel. Prof. Harry Roque made an admirable argument that criminalizing libel violates international standards that emerged after 1930. However, as Justice Marvic Leonen countered during the arguments, the justices may fairly reject that these standards bind us. What punishment to impose on libel is thus not a legal issue. Senators Sonny Angara and Chiz Escudero are right to push for a law decriminalizing libel in response to the decision.
Yes, online libel has been a crime since 1930. A criminal libel case involving teenage online rants such as “I super frikin wanted to kill her and make her the frikin next assuming queen!” was filed before the Cybercrime Act and reached our Court of Appeals in 2012 (“DOJ punishes Facebook felonies,” Opinion, 2/8/2013). The arrest of antimining activist Esperlita “Perling” Garcia over a Facebook post in 2012 was also under the real-world Penal Code.
But when Sotto crudely imported the 1930 law into the Cybercrime Act, he also imported longstanding libel protections. The most important is the “public figure” doctrine, where fair discussion of a public figure is not libel again absent actual malice. A public figure is someone the public will naturally discuss because of his celebrity, his thrusting himself into the limelight or his becoming intertwined “in an issue of public interest.” Last year, lawyer Lorna Kapunan filed a libel case against Internet reporter Natashya Gutierrez for writing about Jeane Napoles’ P80-million Los Angeles condo, allegedly because of envy from high school. Gutierrez countered that she wrote this after the Napoleses became public figures following the Inquirer’s pork barrel exposé, and Kapunan failed to argue actual malice. Also in 2013, Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio emphasized public figure doctrine in the Fortun decision that refused to punish Inquirer.net and other websites that reported a confidential disbarment case against Ampatuan lawyer Sigfrid Fortun. Moreover, the cybercrime decision itself clarified that online libel will generally be against the original author only and not those who react. This protects likes, shares and retweets (which are vague in terms of the intent required to establish libel anyway) and generally how messages can casually be resent on the Internet.
The media bear some blame for how the issues were miscommunicated, down to how many still think online libel was not a crime before the Cybercrime Act. This focus on libel meant the law’s more technical, more insidious provisions escaped public attention. Outraged citizens must appreciate how the decision prohibits without a court warrant (1) collection of “traffic data,” or data regarding Internet and phone usage that reveals the intimate patterns of one’s life, and (2) taking down websites allegedly involved in cybercrimes. The “double jeopardy” provision imposing higher penalties on cybercrimes compared to their real-world counterparts was upheld except in relation to libel and child pornography. Note that Bayan Muna Rep. Neri Colmenares, who is now vocally protesting the decision, was assigned to attack this provision at the Supreme Court but came unprepared, giving answers such as “I’m not very good at the Internet” and “I’m not familiar with the technology.”
Netizens must critically understand the cybercrime decision before joining the angry bandwagon. That said, I invite the outraged to call Sotto an idiot in a truly #NonLibelousTweet. Know that doing so is no cybercrime, but part of a storied tradition traced to our parents who stood against tanks at Edsa in 1986 and to the sacrifice of all who died wearing our flag and uniform in our great nation’s history.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
LinkWithin
