chavez vs. gonzales original case
Post on 11-Feb-2018
224 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/23/2019 Chavez vs. Gonzales Original Case
1/24
x-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
PUNO, C.J.:
A. Precis
In this jurisdiction, it is established that freedom of the press is crucial and so inextricably woven into the riht to
free speech and free expression, that any attempt to restrict it must be met with an examination so critical that only a
daner that is clear and present would be allowed to curtail it!
1
EN BANC
FRANCISCO CHAVEZ,
Petitioner,
- versus -
RAUL M. GONZALES,
in his caaci!" as !he
Secre!ar" #$ !he
Dear!%en! #$ &us!ice'
an( NA)IONAL )ELECOMMUNICA)IONS
COMMISSION *N)C+,
Respondents.
G.R. N#. //
Present:
PUNO, C.J.,
"UI#U$%IN&,
'N()*#-#(N+I(&O,
#(NO(.-&U+I*))*/,
0()PIO,(U#+)I(-$()+IN*/,
0O)ON(,
0()PIO $O)(.*#,
(/0UN(,
+IN&(,
01I0O-N(/()IO,
*.(#0O, 2)!,
N(01U)(,
)*'*#, and
.*ON()O-* 0(#+)O,JJ.
Promulated:
3ebruary 45, 6778
-
7/23/2019 Chavez vs. Gonzales Original Case
2/24
Indeed, we have not wavered in the duty to uphold this cherished freedom! 9e have struc down laws and
issuances meant to curtail this riht, as in Adiong v. COMELEC,;4
-
7/23/2019 Chavez vs. Gonzales Original Case
3/24
5! On 2une 44, 6775, the N+0 issued this press release:;44, 6775, N+0 held a (ia3#7uewith the %oard of irectors of the%apisanan ng #ga Brod&aster sa
Pilipinas '%BP(! N+0 alleedly assured the J%P that the press release did not violate the constitutional freedom
of speech, of expression, and of the press, and the riht to information! (ccordinly, N+0 and J%P issued
a in! 2ress S!a!e%en!which states, amon others, that:;468H
-
7/23/2019 Chavez vs. Gonzales Original Case
9/24
interfere or defeat the freedom to write for the press or to maintain a periodical publication are liable for damaes, be they
private individuals or public officials!
E.4. AATO$, OF RESTR!CT!OS: PR!OR RESTRA!T& COTET"EUTRAL AD COTET"BASED
REGULAT!OS
Philippine jurisprudence, even as early as the period under the 4H=5 0onstitution, has reconi?ed four aspects of
freedom of the press! +hese are @4A freedom from prior restraint @6A freedom from punishment subseFuent to
publication;5=A freedom of circulation!;55i33 #$ Ri7h!s :; 4e 3i
-
7/23/2019 Chavez vs. Gonzales Original Case
13/24
%roadcastin has to be licensed! (irwave freFuencies have to be allocated amon Fualified users!
( broadcast corporation cannot simply appropriate a certain freFuency without reard for
overnment reulation or for the rihts of others!
(ll forms of communication are entitled to the broad protection of the freedom of expression
clause! Necessarily, however, the freedom of television and radio broadcastin is somewhat lesser
in scope than the freedom accorded to newspaper and print media!
+heA#erican Court in 8ederal Co##unications Co##ission v. Pacifica 8oundation @>=8 U!#!
G6EA, confronted with a patently offensive and indecent reular radio proram, explained whyradio broadcastin, more than other forms of communications, receives the most limited
protection from the free expression clause! 3irst, broadcast media have established a uniFuely
pervasive presence in the lives of all citi?ens, $aterial presented over the airwaves confronts the
citi?en, not only in public, but in the privacy of his home! #econd, broadcastin is uniFuely
accessible to children! %oostores and motion picture theaters may be prohibited from main
certain material available to children, but the same selectivity cannot be done in radio or
television, where the listener or viewer is constantly tunin in and out!
#imilar considerations apply in the area of national security!
+he broadcast media have also established a uniFuely pervasive presence in the lives of all
3ilipinos! Newspapers and current boos are found only in metropolitan areas and in the
poblaciones of municipalities accessible to fast and reular transportation! *ven here, there arelow income masses who find the cost of boos, newspapers, and maa?ines beyond their humble
means! %asic needs lie food and shelter perforce enjoy hih priorities!
On the other hand, the transistor radio is found everywhere! +he television set is also becomin
universal! +heir messae may be simultaneously received by a national or reional audience of
listeners includin the indifferent or unwillin who happen to be within reach of a blarin radio
or television set! +he materials broadcast over the airwaves reach every person of every ae,
persons of varyin susceptibilities to persuasion, persons of different I!"!s and mental
capabilities, persons whose reactions to inflammatory or offensive speech would be difficult to
monitor or predict! +he impact of the vibrant speech is forceful and immediate! Unlie readers of
the printed wor, the radio audience has lesser opportunity to coitate analy?e, and reject the
utterance!
@5A +he clear and present daner test, therefore, must tae the particular circumstances of broadcast
media into account! +he supervision of radio stations-whether by overnment or throuh self-
reulation by the industry itself calls for thouhtful, intellient and sophisticated handlin!
+he overnment has a riht to be protected aainst broadcasts which incite the listeners to
violently overthrow it! )adio and television may not be used to orani?e a rebellion or to sinalthe start of widespread uprisin! (t the same time, the people have a riht to be informed! )adio
and television would have little reason for existence if broadcasts are limited to bland,
obseFuious, or pleasantly entertainin utterances! #ince they are the most convenient and popular
means of disseminatin varyin views on public issues, they also deserve special protection!
@EA +he freedom to comment on public affairs is essential to the vitality of a representative
democracy! In the 4H48 case of 0nited States v. Bustos @=G Phil! G=4A this 0ourt was alreadystressin that!
+he interest of society and the maintenance of ood overnment demand a full discussion of
public affairs! 0omplete liberty to comment on the conduct of public men is a scalpel in the case
of free speech! +he sharp incision of its probe relieves the abscesses of officialdom! $en in
public life may suffer under a hostile and an unjust accusation the wound can be assuaed with
the balm of a clear conscience! ( public officer must not be too thin-sinned with reference to
comment upon his official acts! Only thus can the intellience and dinity of the individual be
exalted!
13
-
7/23/2019 Chavez vs. Gonzales Original Case
14/24
@GA %roadcast stations deserve the special protection iven to all forms of media by the due process
and freedom of expression clauses of the 0onstitution! ;0itations omitted
-
7/23/2019 Chavez vs. Gonzales Original Case
16/24
abride freedom of speech and of the press failed to hurdle the clear and present daner test! It appears that the 7rea!
evi3which overnment wants to prevent is the airin of a tape recordin in alleed violation of the anti-wiretappin law!
+he records of the case at bar, however, are confused and confusin, and respondentsD evidence falls short of satisfyin the
clear and present daner test! Firs!3", the various statements of the Press #ecretary obfuscate the identity of the voices in
the tape recordin! Sec#n(3", the interity of the taped conversation is also suspect! +he Press #ecretary showed to the
public two versions, one supposed to be a BcompleteC version and the other, an BalteredC version! )hir(3", the evidence
of the respondents on the whoDs and the howDs of the wiretappin act is ambivalent, especially considerin the tapeDs
different versions! +he identity of the wire-tappers, the manner of its commission and other related and relevant proofs are
some of the invisibles of this case! F#ur!h3", iven all these unsettled facets of the tape, it is even aruable whether its
airin would violate the anti-wiretappin law!
9e rule that n#! ever" vi#3a!i#n #$ a 3a4 4i33 8us!i$" s!rai!8ac
-
7/23/2019 Chavez vs. Gonzales Original Case
17/24
resu3! in !he eas" circu%ven!i#n #$ !he r#hi5i!i#n #n ri#r res!rain!. +he press statements at bar are acts that should
be struc down as they constitute impermissible forms of prior restraints on the riht to free speech and press!
+here is enouh evidence of chi33in7 e$$ec!of the complained acts on record! +he 4arnin7siven to
media ca%e $r#% n# 3essthe N+0, a reulatory aency that can cancel the 0ertificate of (uthority of the radio and
broadcast media! +hey also came from the #ecretary of 2ustice, the alter eo of the *xecutive, who wields the awesome
power to prosecute those perceived to be violatin the laws of the land! A$!er !he 4arnin7s, the J%P inexplicably joined
the N+0 in issuin an ambivalent 2oint Press #tatement! (fter the warnins, petitioner 0have? was left alone to fiht this
battle for freedom of speech and of the press! +his silence on the sidelines on the part of some media practitioners is too
deafenin to be the subject of misinterpretation!
+he constitutional imperative for us to strie down unconstitutional acts should always be exercised with care and in
liht of the distinct facts of each case! 3or there are no hard and fast rules when it comes to slippery constitutiona
Fuestions, and the limits and construct of relative freedoms are never set in stone! Issues revolvin on their construc
must be decided on a case to case basis, always based on the peculiar shapes and shadows of each case! %ut in caseswhere the challened acts are patent invasions of a constitutionally protected riht, 4e sh#u3( 5e s4i$!in striin them
down as nullities per se! A 53#4 !## s##n s!ruc< $#r $ree(#% is re$erre( !han a 53#4 !## 3a!e.
In VIE HEREOF, the petition is GRAN)ED! +he writs of certiorariand prohibition are hereby issued
nullifyin the official statements made by respondents on 2une 8, and 44, 6775 warnin the media on airin the alleed
wiretapped conversation between the President and other personalities, for constitutin unconstitutional prior restraint on
the exercise of freedom of speech and of the press
SO ORDERED!
RENA)O S. 2UNO
0hief 2ustice
9* 0ON0U):
LEONARDO A. UISUM>ING(ssociate 2ustice
CONSUELO NARES-SAN)IAGO(ssociate 2ustice
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GU)IERREZ
(ssociate 2ustice
AN)ONIO ). CAR2IO
(ssociate 2ustice
17
-
7/23/2019 Chavez vs. Gonzales Original Case
18/24
MA. ALICIA AUS)RIA-MAR)INEZ
(ssociate 2ustice
RENA)O C. CORONA
(ssociate 2ustice
CONCHI)A CAR2IO MORALES
(ssociate 2ustice
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
(ssociate 2ustice
DAN)E O. )INGA
(ssociate 2ustice
MINI)A V. CHICO-NAZARIO
(ssociate 2ustice
2RES>I)ERO &. VELASCO, &R.
(ssociate 2ustice
AN)ONIO EDUARDO >. NACHURA
(ssociate 2ustice
RU>EN ). REES )ERESI)A LEONARDO-DE CAS)RO
(ssociate 2ustice (ssociate 2ustice
18
-
7/23/2019 Chavez vs. Gonzales Original Case
19/24
C E R ) I F I C A ) I O N
Pursuant to #ection 4=, (rticle III of the 0onstitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above decision had been
reached in consultation before the case was assined to the writer of the opinion of the 0ourt!
RENA)O S. 2UNO
0hief 2ustice
;4A!;=G5G4, $ay 5, 6774, =5G #0)( >HE!;>88 #0)( 66E!;5, 6775, p! (4Aand p! 58!
;E #0)( =4G uingona v. Carague, &!)! No! H>5G4, (pril 66, 4HH4, 4HE #0)( 664 Os#e$a v
COMELEC, &!)! No! 477=48, 2uly =7, 4HH4, 4HH #0)( G57Basco v. PACOR, 6G> Phil! =6= @4HH4A Carpio v
19
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref22 -
7/23/2019 Chavez vs. Gonzales Original Case
20/24
E"ecutive Secretar!, &!)! No! HE>7H, 3ebruary 4>, 4HH6, 67E #0)( 6H7el Mar v. PACOR, >77 Phil! =7G
@6777A!;6= Phil! =6= @4HH4A, citin%apatiran ng #ga )agliling&od sa Pa#ahalaan ng Pilipinas 9nc. v.
4an, &!)! No! .-84=44, 2une =7, 4H88, 4E= #0)( =G4!;6>!;65A!;=E>, E55 @4H6HA!;>46G4, >H>@4HEHA!;>=85 @677=
;1ereinafter * .*ON, 0ON#+I+U+ION(. .(9>85! .aws have also limited the freedom of speech and of the press, or
otherwise affected the media and freedom of expression! +he 0onstitution itself imposes certain limits @such as
(rticle IS on the 0ommission on *lections, and (rticle SI prohibitin forein media ownershipA as do
20
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/168338.htm#_ftnref45 -
7/23/2019 Chavez vs. Gonzales Original Case
21/24
the )evised Penal 0ode @with provisions on national security, libel and obscenityA,
the 0ivil 0ode @which contains two articles on privacyA, the )ules of 0ourt @on the fair administration of justice
and contemptA and certain presidential decrees! +here is also a Bshield law,C or )epublic (ct No! 5=, as amended by
)epublic (ct No! 4>GG! #ection 4 of this law provides protection for non
disclosure of sources of information, without prejudice to oneDs liability under civil and criminal laws! +he
publisher, editor, columnist or duly accredited reporter of a newspaper, maa?ine or periodical of
eneral circulation cannot be compelled to reveal the source of any information or news report appearin in said
publication, if the information was released in confidence to such publisher, editor or reporter unless the court or a
0ommittee of 0onress finds that such revelation is demanded by the security of the state!;>EG8G4 @4HEHA! #eePeople v. Pere-
> Phil! 5HH @4H75APeople v. )a+ong, 5G Phil! >55 @4H==APeople v. 8eleo, 5G Phil! >54 @4H==A!;>HG4, 5=6-5=G
@4HEHA!;57
-
7/23/2019 Chavez vs. Gonzales Original Case
22/24
system of prior restraint comes to court bearin a heavy burden aainst its constitutionality! It is the overnment
which must show justification for enforcement of the restraint!CA! #ee also9glesia ni Cristo v. Court of Appeals, =68
Phil! 8H= @4HHEA @reliious speech falls within the protection of free speechA!;5H7= U# G4= @4HG4A!;E75G @4H8=A,)avarro v. ;illegas, &!)! No! .-=4E8G, 3ebruary 48, 4HG7, =4
#0)( G=79gnacio v. Ela, HH Phil! =>E @4H5EAPri#icias v. 3uosa, 87 Phil! G4 @4H>8A!;E4 @6777A!;EH
-
7/23/2019 Chavez vs. Gonzales Original Case
23/24
Broadcasting Co. v. 0nited States, =4H U!#! 4H7, 64H @4H>=A@notin that the public interest standard denoted to the
300 is an expansive powerA!;GE=8 U!#! G6E @4HG8ASa+le
Co##unications v. 8CC, >H6 U!#! 445 @4H8HA andReno v. A#erican Civil Li+erties 0nion 2ACL03, 564 U!#! 8>>
8G> @4HHGA! In these cases, U!#! courts disrearded the arument that the offended listener or viewer could simply
turn the dial and avoid the unwanted broadcast ;thereby puttin print and broadcast media in the same footinH6 U!#! 445 @4H8HA andReno v. A#erican Civil Li+erties 0nion 2ACL03, 564 U!#! 8>>, 8G> @4HHGA! In 300
v! Pacifica 3oundation, involvin an 300 decision to reFuire broadcasters to channel indecent prorammin away
from times of the day when there is a reasonable ris that children may be in the audience, the U!#! 0ourt found
that the broadcast medium was an intrusive and pervasive one! In reaffirmin that this medium should receive the
most limited of 3irst (mendment protections, the U!#! 0ourt held that the rihts of the public to avoid indecent
speech trump those of the broadcaster to disseminate such speech! +he justifications for this rulin were two-fold!3irst, the reulations were necessary because of the pervasive presence of broadcast media in (merican life,
capable of injectin offensive material into the privacy of the home, where the riht Tto be left alone plainly
outweihs the 3irst (mendment rihts of an intruder!T #econd, the U!#! 0ourt found that broadcastin Tis uniFuelyaccessible to children, even those too youn to read!T +he 0ourt dismissed the arument that the offended listener
or viewer could simply turn the dial and avoid the unwanted broadcast, reasonin that because the broadcast
audience is constantly tunin in and out, prior warnins cannot protect the listener from unexpected proram
content!;GHE8 U!#! =E>, =GE @4H8>A!;87?!;84Bbein in fact an animatin principle of that document!C =54 Phil! EH6, G48 @4HH8A!;86
-
7/23/2019 Chavez vs. Gonzales Original Case
24/24
;8H @0O$*.*0 )esolution restrainin (%#-0%N, a
corporation enaed in broadcast media of television and radio, from conductin exit surveys after the 4HH8
electionsA! (lthouh the decision was rendered after the 4HH8 elections, the 0ourt proceeded to rule on the case to
rule on the issue of the constitutionality of holdin exit polls and the dissemination of data derived therefrom! +he
0ourt ruled that restriction on exit polls must be tested aainst the clear and present daner rule, the rule we
BunFuestionablyC adhere to! +he framin of the uidelines issued by the 0ourt clearly showed that the issue
involved not only the conduct of the exit polls but also its dissemination by broadcast media! (nd yet, the 0ourt did
not distinuish, and still applied the clear and present daner rule!;H7
top related