Dating daan vs


16-Jan-2021 10:22

Like the Soriano group, cult members belong to an elite structure (group) dictated by leaders (presiding ministers) who profess to be the only ones communicating through God.By keeping the lives of their members compartmentalized, cult leaders allow no time for their followers to reflect or think, leading to stress and mental illness. 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. Even petitioner's 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. 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. 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. 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. Petitioner's position may be accorded some cogency, but for the fact that it fails to consider that the medium he used to make his statements was a television broast, which is accessible to children of virtually all ages.

They simply illustrate that petitioner had descended to the level of name-calling and foul-language discourse. The station was not suspended for the broast of the monologue, which the U. Supreme Court merely considered indecent speech based on the context in which it was delivered. The monologue was broast at p.m., when children were presumptively in the audience. FCC, establishes the safe harbor period to be from in the evening to in the morning, when the number of children in the audience is at a minimum. and a.m., the broasting of material considered indecent is permitted. and p.m., the broast of any indecent material may be sanctioned. So are the supportive arguments and some of the citations of decisional law, Philippine and American, holding it together. 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. Petitioner's 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. 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.

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.

Consider the following excerpts from the Court's Decision: There is nothing in petitioner's statements subject of the complaints expressing any particular religious belief, nothing furthering his avowed evangelical mission.