Gma vs ang dating daan times internet dating sites
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. 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.The following information will serve as transparent evidence of scandals that have rocked Eli Soriano and his Ang Dating Daan cult.As normal for all religious cult leaders, Soriano has faced his share of scandals ranging from homosexual rape, tax evasion charges and lawsuits for hate speech and he is currently on the run over some of these charges.In support of his urging, he cites Iglesia ni Cristo v. Petitioner's invocation of Iglesia ni Cristo to support his hands-off thesis is erroneous. The rule on this matter, as laid down by Pacifica in relation to Action for Children's Television, is crystal-clear.Obviously, he fails to appreciate what the Court stated in that particular case when it rejected the argument that a religious program is beyond MTRCB's review and regulatory authority. 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. 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. 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.
Petitioner would next have the Court adopt a hands-off approach to the conflict between him and the Iglesia Ni Cristo. 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. Correctly applying Pacifica's context-based ruling, petitioner's speech, if indeed indecent, enjoys constitutional protection and may not be sanctioned.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.