UPDATED. Law on Mass Media 5th Exercise Prior Restraint 10pts Deadline Oct. 16
UPDATE (Correction) : The deadline as stated is Wednesday — Wednesday is Oct. 16, not 14. Apologies.
Law on Mass Media 5th Exercise Prior Restraint 10pts Deadline Oct. 16
To cap the section on the right to freedom from prior restraint, choose one problem and provide the answer; then, illustrate the problem by describing an event/ an article / social media post (if social media post, redact/ remove the url and any real name and make sure you have it in your print notes as it will be retrieved in class) :
Choose one:
1.Whenever Twitter/FB takes down a tweet/post, or takes down an account, is it a form of presumptively unconstitutional prior restraint as illustrated in the cases taken up? Why or why not? (cite case or authorities) Illustrate the problem by providing a tweet/post/ account that was taken down. (time frame: 2009-2019)
Or
2.Whenever a government agency requires a TV show (teleserye or otherwise) or radio program (any format), before airing, to submit to it (the government agency) a script or the episode itself before broadcast, is it a form of prior restraint? (cite case or authorities) Why or why not? Illustrate the problem by describing an event or providing an article/ report of an event or situation that illustrates the problem. (time frame: 2009-2019)
Or
3.Whenever threats of closing down or non-renewal of franchise resulting in closure or filing of cases resulting in closure are made against a media organization, do the threats create a “chilling effect” that operate as a form of prior restraint? Why of why not? (cite case or authorities). Illustrate the problem by describing an event or providing an article/ report of an event or situation that illustrates the problem. (time frame: 2009-2019)
4. In your opinion, whenever the MTRCB issues a ten-word notice of an X-rating on a film, is it a form of prior restraint? Why or why not? Illustrate the problem by describing an event or providing an article/ report of an event or situation that illustrates the problem. (time frame: 2009-2019)
(NOTE: class members are not allowed to copy the illustration already provided by another class member (earlier or priorly) – it pays to post promptly 😊 )
For ten points: Deadline, Wednesday, 16 October 2019 at 5pm.
(Update: “Bliss” has been provided as illustration by class member Sy at 10:37am today Oct. 14. All who use this as an illustration after that will not get credit — Pls read again the instructions. Reading is a good practice. See also that the time frame is the entire decade. Marami pong salamat.)
23 thoughts on “UPDATED. Law on Mass Media 5th Exercise Prior Restraint 10pts Deadline Oct. 16”
For Lara: Thank you for your post. Please review our discussion in class. Your opinion is not in accord with constitutional law principles behind the concept of prior restraint. Tnx. -marichu
❤ ❤ ❤
Whenever Twitter takes down accounts/tweets
Twitter apologizes for suspending accounts critical of China
According to the 1987 Constitution “No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.” This implies that expression is not bound by prior restraint as the Constitution states that freedom of expression shall not be curtailed. Moreover, upon reading the facts of the case, Chavez vs DOJ Secretary Raul Gonzales, it was stated that expression may be subject to prior restraint if they are regarding pornography, false advertisement, an advocacy of imminent lawless action, or are a danger to national security. All other expressions are not subject to prior restraint. With this, I can say that Twitter taking down government-critical accounts is considered a form of presumptively unconstitutional prior restraint.
The Rappler article highlights the ‘errors’ of Twitter in engaging in media manipulation. The social media platform had allegedly suspended/blocked several accounts criticizing the Communist party from China just days before the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square crackdown. Moreover, Cao Yuexin, the founder of human rights site China Change, stated that among the blocked accounts were belonging to activists and writers who documented the disappearance of minority group Uighurs. An example of the tweets removed is one by filmmaker Deng Chuanbin who tweeted a photo of a liquor label displaying a rendition of “Tank Man”, which is a known photograph a man standing in front of a line of armored vehicles. He was later arrested for posting such tweet.
In this instance, we can say that what Twitter and China are doing is unconstitutional as it violates the freedom of expression of individuals–as especially seen in the case of Deng Chuanbin. This case does not fall under the jurisdiction of prior restraint as it is not about pornography, a false advertisement, an advocacy of imminent lawless action, or a danger to national security, but merely revolves around government critiques. Furthermore, the case of Chavez vs DOJ Secretary Raul Gonzales, E.3 states that “Persons who interfere or defeat the freedom to write for the press or to maintain a periodical publication are liable for damages, be they private individuals or public officials,” suggesting that the prior restraint used by Twitter upon government-critical accounts is invalid due to it curtailing the public’s rights to freedom of expression and of the press, and to information on matters of public concern.
For Lara: Thank you for your post. Please review our discussion in class. Your opinion is not in accord with constitutional law principles behind the concept of prior restraint. Tnx. -marichu
One of the problems in our society is that some issues and matters are taken personally by the government, and that they tend to threat those who oppose them. Hence, there can be no law restraining the speech and expressions of a person who speak about their oppositions about some laws and issues.
‘Duterte to block renewal of ABS-CBN franchise’
President Rodrigo Duterte accused ABS-CBN of ‘swindling’ last April 27, 2017 for not showing his political ads during the 2016 campaign season, though it was already paid.
The president said that he will file a complaint against the tv station, and added that he will ‘block’ the franchise of ABS-CBN if they are engaged in swindling. Thus, he bared his decision to block the franchise renewal days after he signed a law renewing the franchise of GMA Network, ABS-CBN’s rival. However, Eugenio ‘Gabby’ Lopez, ABS-CBN chairman, sought to ease stockholders’ concerns about the issue that the anger of an administration towards media is “part and parcel” of the work of media.
For me, this threat creates a chilling effect that is somehow operate as a form of prior restraint because if not, president Duterte could have passed a complaint way before the franchise renewal happened, since swindling is another issue. He may be just using the franchise renewal as to cover his own intentions. With this, president Duterte also spoken against to news outlets who put out stories that are critical of him. This just somehow shows that the president tries to keep his bad side by restraining ABS-CBN and some of the news outlets with their freedom of speech and expression. Since, this was not the first time that Duterte raised such allegations against the tv station. Although, we know that journalists would never stop providing the public facts even though the government or administration is against them and limits them.
edited version:
Right to Freedom from Prior Restraint
One of the problems in our society is that some issues and matters are taken personally by the government, and that they tend to threat those who oppose them. Hence, there can be no law restraining the speech and expressions of a person who speak about their oppositions about some laws and issues.
‘Duterte to block renewal of ABS-CBN franchise’
President Rodrigo Duterte accused ABS-CBN of ‘swindling’ last April 27, 2017 for not showing his political ads during the 2016 campaign season, though it was already paid.
The president said that he will file a complaint against the tv station, and added that he will ‘block’ the franchise of ABS-CBN if they are engaged in swindling. Thus, he bared his decision to block the franchise renewal days after he signed a law renewing the franchise of GMA Network, ABS-CBN’s rival. However, Eugenio ‘Gabby’ Lopez, ABS-CBN chairman, sought to ease stockholders’ concerns about the issue that the anger of an administration towards media is “part and parcel” of the work of media.
For me, this threat creates a chilling effect that is somehow operate as a form of prior restraint because if not, president Duterte could have passed a complaint way before the franchise renewal happened, since swindling is another issue. He may be just using the franchise renewal as to cover his own intentions. With this, president Duterte also spoken against to news outlets who put out stories that are critical of him. This just somehow shows that the president tries to keep his bad side by restraining ABS-CBN and some of the news outlets with their freedom of speech and expression. Since, this was not the first time that Duterte raised such allegations against the tv station. Although, we know that journalists would never stop providing the public facts even though the government or administration is against them and limits them.
In the previous case reported on, Gonzales vs Kalaw-Katigbak, the issue is whether there was grave abuse of discretion in classifying the film as not suitable for viewing and required deletion of some scenes. This issue is very similar to what the film “Bliss” went through int 2017, when it was slapped with an X-rating by the MTRCB.
In my opinion, yes. The issuance of an X-rating on a film is against the right of freedom from prior restraint. As part of RD in the case Gonzales vs Kalaw-Katigbak, it was discussed that the board of film reviewers should not have the power to totally ban a film from screening or to be able to remove some of its parts. Which is quite similar to giving an X-rating. The extent of the power of the MTRCB must only be classification, not disqualification. The existence of an X-rating is, in the first place, quite absurd because you assume that nobody is capable of watching the film as a whole. When a film is X-rated, it is as if you’re saying that the public are not allowed a choice whether they understand the film or not after they watch it, because you are completely removing the option for them to be able to watch it.
Yes, classifying a film as X-rated is a form of prior restraint, and I think this issue with “Bliss” serves as a good example. The people must be given a choice, for choice is the basis of a democratic country.
“Whenever a government agency requires a TV show (teleserye or otherwise) or radio program …..”
Yes, it is a form of prior restraint. The state or any government agency cannot interfere with the artistic expression of tv programs, as the interference can disrupt the flow of the whole story and cause the destruction of the plot that the writers, producers, and directors want to convey. Only the editors and the media personnel can edit the script, and not the state.
Television series “Ang Probinsyano” was criticized by DILG and the PNP for showing a negative portrayal of the police.Senator Antonio Trillanes IV defended the producers of “Ang Probinsyano”, saying that the government, wanting to change the script of the said show, is a form of censorship. He added that, ““Kung sila ay nao-offend sa mga napapanood nila, ‘wag sila manood. ‘Yan fiction ‘yan.”
For “yen” : Thank you for your post. “Bliss” has already been used by a class member as illustration priorly. Kindly see instructions. Marami pong salamat. -marichu
xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx
FREEDOM FROM PRIOR RESTRAINT
In your opinion, whenever the MTRCB issues a notice of an X-rating on a film, is it a form of prior restraint? Why or why not? Illustrate the problem by describing an event or providing an article/ report of an event or situation that illustrates the problem. (time frame: 2009-2019)
Why new Iza Calzado movie got X-rating from MTRCB
MANILA — A film from “Heneral Luna” director Jerrold Tarog was rated X by the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB).
Tarog’s “Bliss,” a psychological thriller starring Iza Calzado, had been deemed unfit for exhibition in local theaters and TV supposedly for scenes featuring prolonged frontal nudity, excessive violence, and masturbation.
Issuing an X-rating on a film is a right of the State in order to prevent a clear and present danger to public morals, health or interest. However, the MTRCB x-rating is usually issued (as it is in this event) due to “obscenity” and a clear legal definition for such has not been reached. As such, giving an X-rating may be a form of prior restraint because it does not fall under the categories of expression which may be subject to prior restraint (pornography, false or misleading advertisement, advocacy of imminent lawless action, and danger to national security).
For Justina: Thank you for your post. You provided a good illustration. Your opinion however on presumptively unconstitutional exercise of prior restraint is not consistent with constitutional law concepts — pls review our discussion. Marami pong salamat. -marichu
Right to Freedom from Prior Restraint
Facebook moderators removed a post by the Anne Frank Center after it posted an “archive photograph of Jewish children who had been stripped and starved by Nazi Germany” to raise awareness about the Holocaust. The Anne Frank Center sent a complaint to Facebook through Twitter, and Facebook reinstated the post after six hours. The complaint said that Facebook removed the post which promoted the need for Holocaust Education for “apparently violating community standards” without giving a reason for doing so. Facebook replied saying it put the post back up, stating that they “don’t allow nude images of children on FB”, but it knows that it is “an important image of historical significance” and has thus restored it.
In this case, I think what Facebook did was a form of prior restraint because people have the right to know what happened during the Holocaust, and that picture is a part of history – which you cannot just take down due to nudity because the picture depicts something deeper than nudity. Doing so is like trying to erase a part of history, and that hinders people from knowing what really happened, from seeing the whole picture. It’s good that Facebook acknowledged its historical significance and has put the post back up.
For “Norberto Triste” : Thank you for your post. “Bliss” has already been used by a class member as illustration priorly. Kindly see the instructions. Marami pong salamat. -marichu
xxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx
Right to Freedom From prior Restrain.
In your opinion, whenever the MTRCB issues a ten-word notice of an X-rating on a film, is it a form of prior restraint? Why or why not? Illustrate the problem by describing an event or providing an article/ report of an event or situation that illustrates the problem.
MTRB is just for regulation of movies and shows and it gives rating that requires standards for audiences but they not saying that movies should not broadcast, some clips are just adjusted based on its ratings.
NEWS: MTRCB reclassifies Iza’s movie ‘Bliss’ to R-18 From X rating
MANILA, Philippines — The psychological thriller “Bliss,” which was originally slapped with an X rating by the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB), has been reclassified as R-18 and passed without cuts.
This after director Jerrold Tarog and the film’s producers submitted their appeal to the MTRCB on Wednesday.
Noel Ferrer, the manager of the film’s star Iza Calzado, confirmed the news in a post on Instagram.
According to Ferrer, the new MTRCB panel composed of Joey Romero, Bibeth Orteza, Gladys Reyes, Consoliza Laguardia and Atty. Ogie Jaro reversed the earlier classification and gave the film a
“unanimous” R-18 rating without cuts.
“Bliss” was originally rated X for scenes featuring prolonged frontal nudity, excessive violence, and masturbation.The board gave “Bliss” the dreaded X for its “gratuitous” sex scenes. One of the scenes in question shows a female character masturbating, half naked, in front of a mirror. There were also other scenes showing full frontal nudity that were interspersed all throughout the film.
Bomba, a film by Ralston Jover about a middle-aged deaf and mute man (played by Allen Dizon) who has a dark past and is involved in a “taboo relationship” with a 16-yea-old girl, got an X-rating (initially) from the MTRCB because of the following reasons: “material contains adult theme; blood and violence; illicit relationship with a minor; children using cuss words and language; depiction of improper use of uniform and no redeeming value.”
I do think that the MTRCB’s issuance of an X-rating on Bomba (or any film for that matter) is a form of prior restraint because it’s an instance where a government institution, which in this case is the MTRCB, is restricting a form of expression (a film) in advance of actual dissemination. I believe that the MTRCB’s only task is to give films ratings and not completely hamper them from being seen by the general public.
Thank you for your post. The movie “Bliss” has been provided as an illustration at 10:37am today by a class member. Thereafter, class members who use the same illustration will not be credited — kindly read the instructions.
(the time frame to get samples from is the entire decade).
Marami pong salamat.
Thank you for your post. The movie “Bliss” has been provided as an illustration at 10:37am today by a class member. Thereafter, class members who use the same illustration will not be credited — kindly read the instructions.
(the time frame to get samples from is the entire decade).
Marami pong salamat.
For Justina: Thank you for your post. You provided a good illustration. Your opinion however on presumptively unconstitutional exercise of prior restraint is not consistent with constitutional law concepts — pls review our discussion. Marami pong salamat. -marichu
For all class members who used the film “Bliss” as an illustration: Thank you for your post. The movie “Bliss” has been provided as an illustration at 10:37am today by a class member. Thereafter, class members who use the same illustration will not be credited — kindly read the instructions.
(the time frame to get -samples from is the entire decade).
Marami pong salamat. -marichu
For class members who used the film “Bliss” as an illustration: Thank you for your post. The movie “Bliss” has been provided as an illustration at 10:37am today Oct. 14 by a class member. Thereafter, class members who use the same illustration will not be credited — kindly read the instructions.
(the time frame to get samples from is the entire decade).
Marami pong salamat.
For “Norberto Triste” : Thank you for your post. Note that the legal discussion below is inaccurate. Kindly see our discussion on prior restraint. Marami pong salamat. -marichu
xxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxx
Edited.
Right to Freedom From prior Restrain.
In your opinion, whenever the MTRCB issues a ten-word notice of an X-rating on a film, is it a form of prior restraint? Why or why not? Illustrate the problem by describing an event or providing an article/ report of an event or situation that illustrates the problem.
MTRB is just for regulation of movies and shows and it gives rating that requires standards for audiences but they not saying that movies should not broadcast, some clips are just adjusted based on its ratings.
NEWS: Viva Films releases ‘Rated X’ trailer for ‘Tragic Theater
MANILA, Philippines – Director Tikoy Aguiluz was dismayed with the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board’s (MTRCB) decision to mark the trailer of “Tragic Theater” as Rated X.
“Tragic Theater” is a movie based on G.M. Coronel’s same-titled novel about the exorcism at the Manila Film Center.
On Aguiluz’s Facebook post, he said the movie trailer was given Rated X twice as the board perceived it as “too scary.”
“Akala ko ba horror film ito?” he added.
Based on the MTRCB’s implementing rules and regulations, a film or trailer is given a Rated X or is said “not suitable for public exhibition” if the Board deems it depicting “a patently lewd, offensive, or demeaning manner, excretory functions and sexual conduct; clearly constitutes an attack against any race, creed, or religion; and condones or encourages the use of illegal drugs and substances.”
It is also gives the Rated X to movies that “tends to undermine the faith and confidence of the people in their government and/or duly-constituted authorities; it glorifies criminals or condones crimes; it is libelous or defamatory to the good name and reputation of any person, whether living or dead; or it may constitute contempt of court or of a quasi-judicial tribunal, or may pertain to matters which are subjudicial in nature.”
As the MTRCB’s authority is limited to movies, TV programs and commercials “intended for public exhibition in theaters and television, and related publicity materials and/or promotional materials,” the Viva Films decided to release the uncut trailer of the film on the internet.
Viva Films is reportedly set to submit another trailer of the film to the MTRCB for approval.
“closure or filing of cases resulting in closure are made against a media organization, do the threats create a “chilling effect” that operate as a form of prior restraint”
Senate President Vicente Sotto III has asked online news site Inquirer.net to take down articles tagging him in the controversial rape case of sexy actress Pepsi Paloma in 1982.
In a letter dated May 29, 2018, Sotto wrote to Inquirer President Paolo Prieto asking them to remove “The rape of Pepsi Paloma” and “Was Pepsi Paloma murdered?” – both written by United States-based columnist Rodel Rodis and published in March 2014.
On Saturday, June 16, Rodis shared on Facebook a copy of Sotto’s letter:
Sotto also asked the Inquirer to take down a March 2016 news article on Sotto’s denial that he used his political affiliation to influence the court decision on the rape case.
“I believe there was malicious imputation of a crime against me…. These kinds of unverified articles have been negatively affecting my reputation for the longest time,” he wrote.
It is a a form of prior restraint because they received this request of having the articles posted on the site to be taken down, citing reasons ranging from “inaccuracy to being unduly vilified in public”. The National Union of Journalists of the Philippines denounces Sotto’s request, saying it is a ‘brazen attempt to suppress freedom of the press and of expression’. He is overstepping his bounds by zeroing in on the Inquirer.net articles, particularly Sotto’s denial on whitewashing the Pepsi Paloma case, which NUJP said was a straight news report. They argued that all 3 articles Sotto wants taken down would not have been posted had they not gone through Inquirer.net’s stringent vetting and editing.
Hi Ma’am just to clarify on the deadline is it on Wednesday or on today(Monday, October 14)? Because in the syllabus it states that the deadlines of the exercises are 6 days after the discussion of the topic.
For “yen” : Thank you for your post. Note that the film “Bomba” has been used by a class member as illustration priorly. Kindly see instructions. Marami pong salamat. -marichu
xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx
FREEDOM FROM PRIOR RESTRAINT
In your opinion, whenever the MTRCB issues a notice of an X-rating on a film, is it a form of prior restraint? Why or why not? Illustrate the problem by describing an event or providing an article/ report of an event or situation that illustrates the problem. (time frame: 2009-2019)
‘Bomba’ director says will appeal to MTRCB his film’s X rating, wants ‘no cuts’
“We’re appealing with no cuts.”
That’s what award-winning filmmaker and screenwriter Ralston Jover told InterAksyon shortly after learning that his latest film, the provocative drama “Bomba,” received an X rating from the Movie Television Review and Classification Board on Monday.
Set against the backdrop of extrajudicial killings in the country, “Bomba” is the story of a middle-aged deaf and mute man played by Allen Dizon who has a dark past and is involved in a “taboo relationship” with a 16-year-old girl portrayed by Angellie Nicholle Sanoy.
The title refers to the disabled man who is like a ticking bomb ready to explode. It is not at all a reference to the soft-porn movies of the early 1970s dubbed as “bomba films.”
Issuing an X-rating on a film is a right of the State in order to prevent a clear and present danger to public morals, health or interest. However, the MTRCB x-rating is usually issued (as it is in this event) due to “obscenity” and a clear legal definition for such has not been reached. As such, giving an X-rating may be a form of prior restraint because it does not fall under the categories of expression which may be subject to prior restraint (pornography, false or misleading advertisement, advocacy of imminent lawless action, and danger to national security).
Whenever Twitter/FB takes down a tweet/post or takes down an account, is it a form of presumptively unconstitutional prior restraint as illustrated in the cases taken up? Why or why not? (cite case or authorities) Illustrate the problem by providing a tweet/post/ account that was taken down. (time frame: 2009-2019)
No. Because social media or the internet does have a content-based restriction. It will only be a form of prior restraint if the government passes a law that could take down posts on Facebook or Twitter that are critical to them.
All laws that suppress or prohibit the freedom of speech violate the Philippine Constitution.
For example, a Facebook post dated last January 2018 has been taken down by the platform for “violating community standards.” The post is considered critical of the government which is the proposed agreement between the current administration and the Marcos’ family on the disposition of their alleged ill-gotten wealth. The Facebook post was retrieved after.
This illustrates that while the government cannot pass any law abridging the freedom of netizens especially on social media sites like facebook and the internet in general, the post taken down by Facebook is a form of content-based restriction and they have their guidelines about it. The specific act of taking down the post I have illustrated is not a form of prior restraint, but rather a content-based restriction done by Facebook.
Note: The name and the link of the post were redacted for privacy purposes but it can be retrieved during class.
Whenever a government agency requires a TV show (teleserye or otherwise) or radio program (any format), before airing, to submit to it (the government agency) a script or the episode itself before broadcast, is it a form of prior restraint? (cite case or authorities) Why or why not? Illustrate the problem by describing an event or providing an article/ report of an event or situation that illustrates the problem. (time frame: 2009-2019)
Yes, it is a form of prior restraint. Media institutions or news outlets should have the freedom to practice their work creatively and independently. If a government agency requires submission of the script or the episode before broadcast, or even regulating accessibility to media institutions through accreditation, the media practitioners involved are no longer able to have their independence in expression and information. In such a case, it becomes regulated by the government agency that requires it.
In this case, the Department of Tourism requires media agencies to be accredited in order to have access for media coverage in Boracay. Although this is not the agency solely focusing on a submission of a script before broadcast, this is its more general form, prior restraint by a government agency before broadcast. Not only this affect a media institution or a news outlet’s accessibility, it also affects their independence to write or broadcast anything that the DOT needs to approve for.
For me, whenever FB or Twitter take down posts or accounts, it is not a form of unconstitutional prior restraint because I think it will depend on how the post or account violates certain rules and regulations of the mentioned social media platforms.
In the news pasted above, Facebook took down several accounts which are spreading fake news, spamming and deceiving people. According to Facebook Philippines, these accounts were taken down because of their “violating behaviors,” misrepresentation and coordinated inauthentic behavior online. In order to protect and control the authenticity of the platform and the users, I think Facebook made the right move to take down these accounts. So I think taking down accounts/posts really depends on the behavior of that account or the content of the post.
marichulambino.com 
For Lara: Thank you for your post. Please review our discussion in class. Your opinion is not in accord with constitutional law principles behind the concept of prior restraint. Tnx. -marichu
❤ ❤ ❤
Whenever Twitter takes down accounts/tweets
Twitter apologizes for suspending accounts critical of China
Source: https://www.rappler.com/technology/social-media/232073-twitter-apologizes-suspending-accounts-critical-china
Date: June 2, 2019
According to the 1987 Constitution “No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.” This implies that expression is not bound by prior restraint as the Constitution states that freedom of expression shall not be curtailed. Moreover, upon reading the facts of the case, Chavez vs DOJ Secretary Raul Gonzales, it was stated that expression may be subject to prior restraint if they are regarding pornography, false advertisement, an advocacy of imminent lawless action, or are a danger to national security. All other expressions are not subject to prior restraint. With this, I can say that Twitter taking down government-critical accounts is considered a form of presumptively unconstitutional prior restraint.
The Rappler article highlights the ‘errors’ of Twitter in engaging in media manipulation. The social media platform had allegedly suspended/blocked several accounts criticizing the Communist party from China just days before the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square crackdown. Moreover, Cao Yuexin, the founder of human rights site China Change, stated that among the blocked accounts were belonging to activists and writers who documented the disappearance of minority group Uighurs. An example of the tweets removed is one by filmmaker Deng Chuanbin who tweeted a photo of a liquor label displaying a rendition of “Tank Man”, which is a known photograph a man standing in front of a line of armored vehicles. He was later arrested for posting such tweet.
In this instance, we can say that what Twitter and China are doing is unconstitutional as it violates the freedom of expression of individuals–as especially seen in the case of Deng Chuanbin. This case does not fall under the jurisdiction of prior restraint as it is not about pornography, a false advertisement, an advocacy of imminent lawless action, or a danger to national security, but merely revolves around government critiques. Furthermore, the case of Chavez vs DOJ Secretary Raul Gonzales, E.3 states that “Persons who interfere or defeat the freedom to write for the press or to maintain a periodical publication are liable for damages, be they private individuals or public officials,” suggesting that the prior restraint used by Twitter upon government-critical accounts is invalid due to it curtailing the public’s rights to freedom of expression and of the press, and to information on matters of public concern.
LikeLike
For Lara: Thank you for your post. Please review our discussion in class. Your opinion is not in accord with constitutional law principles behind the concept of prior restraint. Tnx. -marichu
LikeLike
Right to Freedom from Prior Restraint
One of the problems in our society is that some issues and matters are taken personally by the government, and that they tend to threat those who oppose them. Hence, there can be no law restraining the speech and expressions of a person who speak about their oppositions about some laws and issues.
‘Duterte to block renewal of ABS-CBN franchise’
President Rodrigo Duterte accused ABS-CBN of ‘swindling’ last April 27, 2017 for not showing his political ads during the 2016 campaign season, though it was already paid.
The president said that he will file a complaint against the tv station, and added that he will ‘block’ the franchise of ABS-CBN if they are engaged in swindling. Thus, he bared his decision to block the franchise renewal days after he signed a law renewing the franchise of GMA Network, ABS-CBN’s rival. However, Eugenio ‘Gabby’ Lopez, ABS-CBN chairman, sought to ease stockholders’ concerns about the issue that the anger of an administration towards media is “part and parcel” of the work of media.
For me, this threat creates a chilling effect that is somehow operate as a form of prior restraint because if not, president Duterte could have passed a complaint way before the franchise renewal happened, since swindling is another issue. He may be just using the franchise renewal as to cover his own intentions. With this, president Duterte also spoken against to news outlets who put out stories that are critical of him. This just somehow shows that the president tries to keep his bad side by restraining ABS-CBN and some of the news outlets with their freedom of speech and expression. Since, this was not the first time that Duterte raised such allegations against the tv station. Although, we know that journalists would never stop providing the public facts even though the government or administration is against them and limits them.
LikeLike
edited version:
Right to Freedom from Prior Restraint
One of the problems in our society is that some issues and matters are taken personally by the government, and that they tend to threat those who oppose them. Hence, there can be no law restraining the speech and expressions of a person who speak about their oppositions about some laws and issues.
‘Duterte to block renewal of ABS-CBN franchise’
President Rodrigo Duterte accused ABS-CBN of ‘swindling’ last April 27, 2017 for not showing his political ads during the 2016 campaign season, though it was already paid.
SOURCE: https://www.rappler.com/nation/168137-duterte-block-abs-cbn-franchise-renewal
The president said that he will file a complaint against the tv station, and added that he will ‘block’ the franchise of ABS-CBN if they are engaged in swindling. Thus, he bared his decision to block the franchise renewal days after he signed a law renewing the franchise of GMA Network, ABS-CBN’s rival. However, Eugenio ‘Gabby’ Lopez, ABS-CBN chairman, sought to ease stockholders’ concerns about the issue that the anger of an administration towards media is “part and parcel” of the work of media.
For me, this threat creates a chilling effect that is somehow operate as a form of prior restraint because if not, president Duterte could have passed a complaint way before the franchise renewal happened, since swindling is another issue. He may be just using the franchise renewal as to cover his own intentions. With this, president Duterte also spoken against to news outlets who put out stories that are critical of him. This just somehow shows that the president tries to keep his bad side by restraining ABS-CBN and some of the news outlets with their freedom of speech and expression. Since, this was not the first time that Duterte raised such allegations against the tv station. Although, we know that journalists would never stop providing the public facts even though the government or administration is against them and limits them.
LikeLike
Right to freedom from Prior Restraint
Whenever the MTRCB issues a ten-word notice of an X-rating on a film
“Bliss” producers to appeal X-rating
Source: https://news.abs-cbn.com/entertainment/04/04/17/bliss-producers-to-appeal-x-rating
In the previous case reported on, Gonzales vs Kalaw-Katigbak, the issue is whether there was grave abuse of discretion in classifying the film as not suitable for viewing and required deletion of some scenes. This issue is very similar to what the film “Bliss” went through int 2017, when it was slapped with an X-rating by the MTRCB.
In my opinion, yes. The issuance of an X-rating on a film is against the right of freedom from prior restraint. As part of RD in the case Gonzales vs Kalaw-Katigbak, it was discussed that the board of film reviewers should not have the power to totally ban a film from screening or to be able to remove some of its parts. Which is quite similar to giving an X-rating. The extent of the power of the MTRCB must only be classification, not disqualification. The existence of an X-rating is, in the first place, quite absurd because you assume that nobody is capable of watching the film as a whole. When a film is X-rated, it is as if you’re saying that the public are not allowed a choice whether they understand the film or not after they watch it, because you are completely removing the option for them to be able to watch it.
Yes, classifying a film as X-rated is a form of prior restraint, and I think this issue with “Bliss” serves as a good example. The people must be given a choice, for choice is the basis of a democratic country.
LikeLike
Right to freedom from prior restraint.
“Whenever a government agency requires a TV show (teleserye or otherwise) or radio program …..”
Yes, it is a form of prior restraint. The state or any government agency cannot interfere with the artistic expression of tv programs, as the interference can disrupt the flow of the whole story and cause the destruction of the plot that the writers, producers, and directors want to convey. Only the editors and the media personnel can edit the script, and not the state.
The exercise of prior restraint can be illustrated through this article: https://www.abante.com.ph/kathang-isip-lang-naman-yan-script-ng-ang-probinsyano-wag-pakialaman.htm#.
Television series “Ang Probinsyano” was criticized by DILG and the PNP for showing a negative portrayal of the police.Senator Antonio Trillanes IV defended the producers of “Ang Probinsyano”, saying that the government, wanting to change the script of the said show, is a form of censorship. He added that, ““Kung sila ay nao-offend sa mga napapanood nila, ‘wag sila manood. ‘Yan fiction ‘yan.”
LikeLike
For “yen” : Thank you for your post. “Bliss” has already been used by a class member as illustration priorly. Kindly see instructions. Marami pong salamat. -marichu
xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx
FREEDOM FROM PRIOR RESTRAINT
In your opinion, whenever the MTRCB issues a notice of an X-rating on a film, is it a form of prior restraint? Why or why not? Illustrate the problem by describing an event or providing an article/ report of an event or situation that illustrates the problem. (time frame: 2009-2019)
Why new Iza Calzado movie got X-rating from MTRCB
MANILA — A film from “Heneral Luna” director Jerrold Tarog was rated X by the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB).
Tarog’s “Bliss,” a psychological thriller starring Iza Calzado, had been deemed unfit for exhibition in local theaters and TV supposedly for scenes featuring prolonged frontal nudity, excessive violence, and masturbation.
SOURCE: https://news.abs-cbn.com/entertainment/03/29/17/why-new-iza-calzado-movie-got-x-rating-from-mtrcb
Issuing an X-rating on a film is a right of the State in order to prevent a clear and present danger to public morals, health or interest. However, the MTRCB x-rating is usually issued (as it is in this event) due to “obscenity” and a clear legal definition for such has not been reached. As such, giving an X-rating may be a form of prior restraint because it does not fall under the categories of expression which may be subject to prior restraint (pornography, false or misleading advertisement, advocacy of imminent lawless action, and danger to national security).
LikeLike
For Justina: Thank you for your post. You provided a good illustration. Your opinion however on presumptively unconstitutional exercise of prior restraint is not consistent with constitutional law concepts — pls review our discussion. Marami pong salamat. -marichu
Right to Freedom from Prior Restraint
Whenever Facebook takes down a post
Facebook pulls post by Anne Frank Center after seeing only nudity in a photo of the Holocaust – 30 August 2018
https://techcrunch.com/2018/08/30/failbook/
Facebook moderators removed a post by the Anne Frank Center after it posted an “archive photograph of Jewish children who had been stripped and starved by Nazi Germany” to raise awareness about the Holocaust. The Anne Frank Center sent a complaint to Facebook through Twitter, and Facebook reinstated the post after six hours. The complaint said that Facebook removed the post which promoted the need for Holocaust Education for “apparently violating community standards” without giving a reason for doing so. Facebook replied saying it put the post back up, stating that they “don’t allow nude images of children on FB”, but it knows that it is “an important image of historical significance” and has thus restored it.
In this case, I think what Facebook did was a form of prior restraint because people have the right to know what happened during the Holocaust, and that picture is a part of history – which you cannot just take down due to nudity because the picture depicts something deeper than nudity. Doing so is like trying to erase a part of history, and that hinders people from knowing what really happened, from seeing the whole picture. It’s good that Facebook acknowledged its historical significance and has put the post back up.
LikeLike
For “Norberto Triste” : Thank you for your post. “Bliss” has already been used by a class member as illustration priorly. Kindly see the instructions. Marami pong salamat. -marichu
xxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx
Right to Freedom From prior Restrain.
In your opinion, whenever the MTRCB issues a ten-word notice of an X-rating on a film, is it a form of prior restraint? Why or why not? Illustrate the problem by describing an event or providing an article/ report of an event or situation that illustrates the problem.
MTRB is just for regulation of movies and shows and it gives rating that requires standards for audiences but they not saying that movies should not broadcast, some clips are just adjusted based on its ratings.
NEWS: MTRCB reclassifies Iza’s movie ‘Bliss’ to R-18 From X rating
Source :https://news.abs-cbn.com/entertainment/04/05/17/mtrcb-reclassifies-izas-movie-bliss-to-r-18
MANILA, Philippines — The psychological thriller “Bliss,” which was originally slapped with an X rating by the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB), has been reclassified as R-18 and passed without cuts.
This after director Jerrold Tarog and the film’s producers submitted their appeal to the MTRCB on Wednesday.
Noel Ferrer, the manager of the film’s star Iza Calzado, confirmed the news in a post on Instagram.
According to Ferrer, the new MTRCB panel composed of Joey Romero, Bibeth Orteza, Gladys Reyes, Consoliza Laguardia and Atty. Ogie Jaro reversed the earlier classification and gave the film a
“unanimous” R-18 rating without cuts.
“Bliss” was originally rated X for scenes featuring prolonged frontal nudity, excessive violence, and masturbation.The board gave “Bliss” the dreaded X for its “gratuitous” sex scenes. One of the scenes in question shows a female character masturbating, half naked, in front of a mirror. There were also other scenes showing full frontal nudity that were interspersed all throughout the film.
LikeLike
Right to freedom from prior restraint
In your opinion, whenever the MTRCB issues a ten-word notice of an X-rating on a film, is it a form of prior restraint?
‘Bomba’ director says will appeal to MTRCB his film’s X rating, wants ‘no cuts’
Souce: http://www.interaksyon.com/entertainment/2017/10/04/101447/bomba-director-says-will-appeal-to-mtrcb-his-films-x-rating-wants-no-cuts/
Bomba, a film by Ralston Jover about a middle-aged deaf and mute man (played by Allen Dizon) who has a dark past and is involved in a “taboo relationship” with a 16-yea-old girl, got an X-rating (initially) from the MTRCB because of the following reasons: “material contains adult theme; blood and violence; illicit relationship with a minor; children using cuss words and language; depiction of improper use of uniform and no redeeming value.”
I do think that the MTRCB’s issuance of an X-rating on Bomba (or any film for that matter) is a form of prior restraint because it’s an instance where a government institution, which in this case is the MTRCB, is restricting a form of expression (a film) in advance of actual dissemination. I believe that the MTRCB’s only task is to give films ratings and not completely hamper them from being seen by the general public.
LikeLike
Thank you for your post. The movie “Bliss” has been provided as an illustration at 10:37am today by a class member. Thereafter, class members who use the same illustration will not be credited — kindly read the instructions.
(the time frame to get samples from is the entire decade).
Marami pong salamat.
LikeLike
Thank you for your post. The movie “Bliss” has been provided as an illustration at 10:37am today by a class member. Thereafter, class members who use the same illustration will not be credited — kindly read the instructions.
(the time frame to get samples from is the entire decade).
Marami pong salamat.
LikeLike
For Justina: Thank you for your post. You provided a good illustration. Your opinion however on presumptively unconstitutional exercise of prior restraint is not consistent with constitutional law concepts — pls review our discussion. Marami pong salamat. -marichu
LikeLike
For all class members who used the film “Bliss” as an illustration: Thank you for your post. The movie “Bliss” has been provided as an illustration at 10:37am today by a class member. Thereafter, class members who use the same illustration will not be credited — kindly read the instructions.
(the time frame to get -samples from is the entire decade).
Marami pong salamat. -marichu
LikeLike
For class members who used the film “Bliss” as an illustration: Thank you for your post. The movie “Bliss” has been provided as an illustration at 10:37am today Oct. 14 by a class member. Thereafter, class members who use the same illustration will not be credited — kindly read the instructions.
(the time frame to get samples from is the entire decade).
Marami pong salamat.
LikeLike
For “Norberto Triste” : Thank you for your post. Note that the legal discussion below is inaccurate. Kindly see our discussion on prior restraint. Marami pong salamat. -marichu
xxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxx
Edited.
Right to Freedom From prior Restrain.
In your opinion, whenever the MTRCB issues a ten-word notice of an X-rating on a film, is it a form of prior restraint? Why or why not? Illustrate the problem by describing an event or providing an article/ report of an event or situation that illustrates the problem.
MTRB is just for regulation of movies and shows and it gives rating that requires standards for audiences but they not saying that movies should not broadcast, some clips are just adjusted based on its ratings.
NEWS: Viva Films releases ‘Rated X’ trailer for ‘Tragic Theater
Source : https://www.philstar.com/entertainment/movies/2014/12/16/1403350/viva-films-releases-rated-x-trailer-tragic-theater
MANILA, Philippines – Director Tikoy Aguiluz was dismayed with the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board’s (MTRCB) decision to mark the trailer of “Tragic Theater” as Rated X.
“Tragic Theater” is a movie based on G.M. Coronel’s same-titled novel about the exorcism at the Manila Film Center.
On Aguiluz’s Facebook post, he said the movie trailer was given Rated X twice as the board perceived it as “too scary.”
“Akala ko ba horror film ito?” he added.
Based on the MTRCB’s implementing rules and regulations, a film or trailer is given a Rated X or is said “not suitable for public exhibition” if the Board deems it depicting “a patently lewd, offensive, or demeaning manner, excretory functions and sexual conduct; clearly constitutes an attack against any race, creed, or religion; and condones or encourages the use of illegal drugs and substances.”
It is also gives the Rated X to movies that “tends to undermine the faith and confidence of the people in their government and/or duly-constituted authorities; it glorifies criminals or condones crimes; it is libelous or defamatory to the good name and reputation of any person, whether living or dead; or it may constitute contempt of court or of a quasi-judicial tribunal, or may pertain to matters which are subjudicial in nature.”
As the MTRCB’s authority is limited to movies, TV programs and commercials “intended for public exhibition in theaters and television, and related publicity materials and/or promotional materials,” the Viva Films decided to release the uncut trailer of the film on the internet.
Viva Films is reportedly set to submit another trailer of the film to the MTRCB for approval.
LikeLike
“closure or filing of cases resulting in closure are made against a media organization, do the threats create a “chilling effect” that operate as a form of prior restraint”
Source: https://rappler.com/nation/205081-tito-sotto-inquirer-take-down-articles-pepsi-paloma-rape
Senate President Vicente Sotto III has asked online news site Inquirer.net to take down articles tagging him in the controversial rape case of sexy actress Pepsi Paloma in 1982.
In a letter dated May 29, 2018, Sotto wrote to Inquirer President Paolo Prieto asking them to remove “The rape of Pepsi Paloma” and “Was Pepsi Paloma murdered?” – both written by United States-based columnist Rodel Rodis and published in March 2014.
On Saturday, June 16, Rodis shared on Facebook a copy of Sotto’s letter:
Sotto also asked the Inquirer to take down a March 2016 news article on Sotto’s denial that he used his political affiliation to influence the court decision on the rape case.
“I believe there was malicious imputation of a crime against me…. These kinds of unverified articles have been negatively affecting my reputation for the longest time,” he wrote.
It is a a form of prior restraint because they received this request of having the articles posted on the site to be taken down, citing reasons ranging from “inaccuracy to being unduly vilified in public”. The National Union of Journalists of the Philippines denounces Sotto’s request, saying it is a ‘brazen attempt to suppress freedom of the press and of expression’. He is overstepping his bounds by zeroing in on the Inquirer.net articles, particularly Sotto’s denial on whitewashing the Pepsi Paloma case, which NUJP said was a straight news report. They argued that all 3 articles Sotto wants taken down would not have been posted had they not gone through Inquirer.net’s stringent vetting and editing.
LikeLike
Hi Ma’am just to clarify on the deadline is it on Wednesday or on today(Monday, October 14)? Because in the syllabus it states that the deadlines of the exercises are 6 days after the discussion of the topic.
With much thanks!
LikeLike
For “yen” : Thank you for your post. Note that the film “Bomba” has been used by a class member as illustration priorly. Kindly see instructions. Marami pong salamat. -marichu
xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx
FREEDOM FROM PRIOR RESTRAINT
In your opinion, whenever the MTRCB issues a notice of an X-rating on a film, is it a form of prior restraint? Why or why not? Illustrate the problem by describing an event or providing an article/ report of an event or situation that illustrates the problem. (time frame: 2009-2019)
‘Bomba’ director says will appeal to MTRCB his film’s X rating, wants ‘no cuts’
“We’re appealing with no cuts.”
That’s what award-winning filmmaker and screenwriter Ralston Jover told InterAksyon shortly after learning that his latest film, the provocative drama “Bomba,” received an X rating from the Movie Television Review and Classification Board on Monday.
Set against the backdrop of extrajudicial killings in the country, “Bomba” is the story of a middle-aged deaf and mute man played by Allen Dizon who has a dark past and is involved in a “taboo relationship” with a 16-year-old girl portrayed by Angellie Nicholle Sanoy.
The title refers to the disabled man who is like a ticking bomb ready to explode. It is not at all a reference to the soft-porn movies of the early 1970s dubbed as “bomba films.”
SOURCE: interaksyon.com/entertainment/2017/10/04/101447/bomba-director-says-will-appeal-to-mtrcb-his-films-x-rating-wants-no-cuts/
Issuing an X-rating on a film is a right of the State in order to prevent a clear and present danger to public morals, health or interest. However, the MTRCB x-rating is usually issued (as it is in this event) due to “obscenity” and a clear legal definition for such has not been reached. As such, giving an X-rating may be a form of prior restraint because it does not fall under the categories of expression which may be subject to prior restraint (pornography, false or misleading advertisement, advocacy of imminent lawless action, and danger to national security).
LikeLike
See correction. The deadline as stated is Wednesday — Wednesday is Oct. 16, not 14. Apologies. Tnx.
LikeLike
Right to Freedom from Prior Restraint
Whenever Twitter/FB takes down a tweet/post or takes down an account, is it a form of presumptively unconstitutional prior restraint as illustrated in the cases taken up? Why or why not? (cite case or authorities) Illustrate the problem by providing a tweet/post/ account that was taken down. (time frame: 2009-2019)
No. Because social media or the internet does have a content-based restriction. It will only be a form of prior restraint if the government passes a law that could take down posts on Facebook or Twitter that are critical to them.
All laws that suppress or prohibit the freedom of speech violate the Philippine Constitution.
For example, a Facebook post dated last January 2018 has been taken down by the platform for “violating community standards.” The post is considered critical of the government which is the proposed agreement between the current administration and the Marcos’ family on the disposition of their alleged ill-gotten wealth. The Facebook post was retrieved after.
This illustrates that while the government cannot pass any law abridging the freedom of netizens especially on social media sites like facebook and the internet in general, the post taken down by Facebook is a form of content-based restriction and they have their guidelines about it. The specific act of taking down the post I have illustrated is not a form of prior restraint, but rather a content-based restriction done by Facebook.
Note: The name and the link of the post were redacted for privacy purposes but it can be retrieved during class.
LikeLike
Right to Freedom from Prior Restraint
Whenever a government agency requires a TV show (teleserye or otherwise) or radio program (any format), before airing, to submit to it (the government agency) a script or the episode itself before broadcast, is it a form of prior restraint? (cite case or authorities) Why or why not? Illustrate the problem by describing an event or providing an article/ report of an event or situation that illustrates the problem. (time frame: 2009-2019)
Yes, it is a form of prior restraint. Media institutions or news outlets should have the freedom to practice their work creatively and independently. If a government agency requires submission of the script or the episode before broadcast, or even regulating accessibility to media institutions through accreditation, the media practitioners involved are no longer able to have their independence in expression and information. In such a case, it becomes regulated by the government agency that requires it.
SOURCE (Illustration): https://www.rappler.com/nation/200353-boracay-media-restriction-prior-restraint
In this case, the Department of Tourism requires media agencies to be accredited in order to have access for media coverage in Boracay. Although this is not the agency solely focusing on a submission of a script before broadcast, this is its more general form, prior restraint by a government agency before broadcast. Not only this affect a media institution or a news outlet’s accessibility, it also affects their independence to write or broadcast anything that the DOT needs to approve for.
LikeLike
Right to Freedom from Prior Restraint
For me, whenever FB or Twitter take down posts or accounts, it is not a form of unconstitutional prior restraint because I think it will depend on how the post or account violates certain rules and regulations of the mentioned social media platforms.
SOURCE: https://news.abs-cbn.com/news/01/11/19/facebook-takes-down-twinmark-media-220-pages-for-fake-news-spam
In the news pasted above, Facebook took down several accounts which are spreading fake news, spamming and deceiving people. According to Facebook Philippines, these accounts were taken down because of their “violating behaviors,” misrepresentation and coordinated inauthentic behavior online. In order to protect and control the authenticity of the platform and the users, I think Facebook made the right move to take down these accounts. So I think taking down accounts/posts really depends on the behavior of that account or the content of the post.
LikeLike