Gma vs ang dating daan
The public soapbox that is television must be guarded by the state, which purpose the MTRCB serves, and has served, in suspending Ang Dating Daan for petitioner's statements. Kalaw Katigbak, the freedom of broast media is, in terms of degree of protection it deserves, lesser in scope, especially as regards television, which reaches every home where there is a set, and where children will likely be among the avid viewers of the programs shown.
As already laid down in the Decision subject of this recourse, the interest of the government in protecting children who may be subjected to petitioner's invectives must take precedence over his desire to air publicly his dirty laundry.
ROUS, IN THEIR CAPACITY AS MEMBERS OF THE HEARING AND ADJUDICATION COMMITTEE OF THE MTRCB, JESSIE L. They have been considered, sufficiently discussed in some detail, and found to be without merit in our Decision.
So are the supportive arguments and some of the citations of decisional law, Philippine and American, holding it together.
Television is a medium that reaches even the eyes and ears of children. Further, the majority opinion held that even if petitioner's utterances were not obscene but merely indecent speech, they would still be outside of the constitutional protection because they were conveyed through a medium easily accessible to children. Pacifica, the leading jurisprudence on this matter. Supreme Court emphasized the narrowness of its ruling in Pacifica.
The Court iterates the rule that the exercise of religious freedom can be regulated by the State when it will bring about the clear and present danger of some substantive evil which the State is duty bound to prevent, i.e. Hey, well, I don't take no shit, you know what I mean? Pacifica did not hold that indecent speech, when conveyed through a medium easily accessible to children, would automatically be outside the constitutional protection. The guideline that Pacifica laid down is that the broast of a monologue containing indecent speech could be considered protected or unprotected depending on the context, that is, the time of the day or the nightwhen the indecent utterances were delivered.
We cannot accept that petitioner made his statements in defense of his reputation and religion, as they constitute no intelligible defense or refutation of the alleged lies being spread by a rival religious group. Supreme Court, the monologue would have been protected were it delivered in another context.
His claim, assuming its veracity, that some INC ministers distorted his statements respecting amounts Ang Dating Daan owed to a TV station does not convert the foul language used in retaliation as religious speech.
The same case also laid the basis for the classification system of the MTRCB when it stated, "It cannot be denied though that the State as parens patriae is called upon to manifest an attitude of caring for the welfare of the young."The penalty of suspension imposed on petitioner has driven him to liken the Court to "a blind man who was asked to describe an elephant, and by his description he stubbornly believed that an elephant is just the same as a Meralco post after touching one if its legs."The Honorable Court should have rendered its decision in light of the surrounding circumstances why and what prompted herein petitioner to utter those words.
MOVIE AND TELEVISION REVIEW AND CLASSIFICATION BOARD, ZOSIMO G. Suffice it to reiterate that the sanction imposed on the TV program in question does not, under the factual milieu of the case, constitute prior restraint, but partakes of the nature of subsequent punishment for past violation committed by petitioner in the course of the broast of the program on August 10, 2004.
It would, thus, make little sense to embark on another lengthy discussion of the same issues and arguments.
To merit a "G" rating, the program must be "suitable for all ages," which, in turn, means that the "material for television [does not], in the judgment of the [MTRCB], x x x contain anything unsuitable for children and minors, and may be viewed without adult guidance or supervision." As previously discussed by the Court, the vulgar language petitioner used on prime-time television can in no way be characterized as suitable for all ages, and is wholly inappropriate for children.
To be sure, petitioner has not contested the fact of his having made statements on the air that were contextually violative of the program's "G" rating.