Petitioner seeks reconsideration on the following grounds or issues: (1) the suspension thus meted out to the program constitutes prior restraint; (2) the Court erred in ruling that his utterances did not constitute exercise of religion; (3) the Court erred in finding the language used as offensive and obscene; (4) the Court should have applied its policy of non-interference in cases of conflict between religious groups; and (5) the Court erred in penalizing the television program for the acts of petitioner. Petitioners threshold posture that the suspension thus imposed constitutes prior restraint and an abridgement of his exercise of religion and freedom of expression is a mere rehash of the position he articulated in the underlying petitions for certiorari and expounded in his memorandum.
Soriano for reconsideration of the Decision of the Court dated April 29, 2009, modifying that of the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB) by imposing the penalty of three-month suspension on the television show Ang Dating Daan, instead of on petitioner Soriano, as host of that program.
Verily, Petitioner submits that the choice of words he used has been harsh but strongly maintains that the same was consistent with his constitutional right of freedom of speech and religion.
- signs im dating a married man
- dating group jewish list yahoo com
- 1 to 1 sex text chats
- ukrainian sites of dating
- audrina patridge dating gossip
- Ladyboy chat free
Even petitioners attempts to place his words in context show that he was moved by anger and the need to seek retribution, not by any religious conviction.
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. Worthy of note, in Pacifica, the FCC did not resort to any subsequent punishment, much less any prior restraint. Supreme Court, the monologue would have been protected were it delivered in another context.
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURTManila EN BANC G. Plain and simple insults directed at another person cannot be elevated to the status of religious speech.
The fact that he came out with his statements in a televised bible exposition program does not automatically accord them the character of a religious discourse.
Its public broadcast on TV of its religious program brings it out of the bosom of internal belief. Hey, well, I don't take no shit, you know what I mean? 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.
Television is a medium that reaches even the eyes and ears of children. Fuck the ump, fuck the ump, fuck the ump, fuck the ump, fuck the ump. 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 broadcast 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 night when the indecent utterances were delivered.
Our country is still not safe from the recurrence of this stultifying strife considering our warring religious beliefs and the fanaticism with which some of us cling and claw to these beliefs. we're really going to fuck, yeh, we're going to make love. And it also means the beginning of life, it's the act that begins life, so there's the word hanging around with words like love, and life, and yet on the other hand, it's also a word that we really use to hurt each other with, man. The restriction on freedom need not be greater than is necessary to further the governmental interest.
x x x For when religion divides and its exercise destroys, the State should not stand still. It's an interesting word too, [']cause it's got a double kind of a life-personality-dual, you know, whatever the right phrase is. First of all, it means, sometimes, most of the time, fuck. It's a heavy one that you have toward the end of the argument. The "balancing of interests" test requires that a determination must first be made whether the necessary safeguarding of the public interest involved may be achieved by some other measure less restrictive of the protected freedom.
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 programs "G" rating.
As he presently argues: The Honorable Court should have rendered its decision in light of the surrounding circumstances why and what prompted herein petitioner to utter those words.