New York Times vs. United States, 403 U.S. 713, June 30, 1971

In New York Times vs. U.S., 403 U.S. 713, June 30, 1971, the federal government of the U.S. sought to enjoin the New York Times and the Washington Post from publishing the contents of a classified Pentagon paper entitled “History of U.S. Decision-Making Process on Viet Nam Policy.” In a terse per curiam resolution, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that “‘[a]ny system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.’ The Government ‘thus carries a heavy burden of showing justification for the imposition of such a [prior] restraint.’ The Court held that in this particular case the Government had not met that burden. Thus, it lifted the injunction it preliminarily issued previously against the newspapers. 

The Power of the MTRCB to Review and Classify Religious TV Programs : The Mendoza thesis

Among the various opinions filed in Iglesia ni Cristo vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119673, July 26, 1996, the  separate opinion of Justice Vicente V. Mendoza seems to me to be the most plausible. Because of that, I am posting a summary of his opinion apart from the rest of the opinions that I previously posted jointly.

Essentially, the Mendoza thesis says that “[c]ensorship may be allowed only in a narrow class of cases involving pornography, excessive violence, and danger to national security. Even in these cases, only courts can prohibit the showing of a film or the broadcast of a program. In all other cases, the only remedy against speech which creates a clear and present danger to public interests is through subsequent punishment. Considering the potentiality for harm which motion pictures and TV programs may have especially on the young, all materials may validly be required to be submitted for review before they may be shown or broadcast. However, the final determination of the character of the materials cannot be left to an administrative agency. That judicial review of administrative action is available does not obviate the constitutional objection to censorship.” 

Iglesia ni Cristo vs. Court of Appeals : The Power of the State to Review and Classify (Censor) Religious Television Shows

In Iglesia ni Cristo vs. CA, G.R. No. 119673, July 26, 1996, several pre-taped episodes of the TV program “Ang Iglesia ni Cristo” of the religious group Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) were rated “X” – i.e., not for public viewing – by the respondent Board of Review for Moving Pictures and Television (now Movie and Television Review and Classification Board). These TV programs allegedly “offend[ed] and constitute[d] an attack against other religions which is expressly prohibited by law” because of petitioner INC’s controversial biblical interpretations and its “attacks” against contrary religious beliefs. 

Petitioner INC went to court to question the actions of respondent Board. The RTC ordered the respondent Board to grant petitioner INC the necessary permit for its TV programs. But on appeal by the respondent Board, the CA reversed the RTC. The CA ruled that: (1) the respondent Board has jurisdiction and power to review the TV program “Ang Iglesia ni Cristo,” and (2) the respondent Board did not act with grave abuse of discretion when it denied permit for the exhibition on TV of the three series of “Ang Iglesia ni Cristo” on the ground that the materials constitute an attack against another religion. The CA also found the subject TV series “indecent, contrary to law and contrary to good customs.”