Petitioner could have chosen to contradict and disprove his detractors, but opted for the low road. The subject never comes up on the panel so I'm not worried about that one. Even in a Walt Disney movie, you can say, We're going to snatch that pussy and put him in a box and bring him on the airplane. onwards, clearly within the safe harbor period as established in Action for Children's Television.
And just to set things straight, the penalty imposed is on the program, not on petitioner. Correctly applying Pacifica's context-based ruling, petitioner's speech, if indeed indecent, enjoys constitutional protection and may not be sanctioned.
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 broadcast 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.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x G. Petitioner next harps on the primacy of his freedoms, referring particularly to the exercise of his religious beliefs and profession, as presiding minister of his flock, over the right and duty of the state as parens patriae.Petitioner would next have the Court adopt a hands-off approach to the conflict between him and the Iglesia Ni Cristo. I found three more words that had to be put on the list of words you could never say on television, and they were fart, turd and twat, those three. The rule on this matter, as laid down by Pacifica in relation to Action for Children's Television, is crystal-clear.In support of his urging, he cites Iglesia ni Cristo v. Petitioners invocation of Iglesia ni Cristo to support his hands-off thesis is erroneous. But should the majority still have any doubt in their minds, such doubt should be resolved in favor of free speech and against any interference by government.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.