ROUS, in their capacity as members of the Hearing and Adjudication Committee of the MTRCB, JESSIE L. They have been considered, sufficiently discussed in some detail, and found to be without merit in our Decision.
Verily, Petitioner submits that the choice of words he used has been harsh but strongly maintains that the same was consistent with his constitutional right of freedom of speech and religion.
LAGUARDIA, in her capacity as Chairperson of the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board, MOVIE AND TELEVISION REVIEW AND CLASSIFICATION BOARD, JESSIE L. Clearly, he was provoked because of the malicious and blatant splicing by the INC ministers of his recorded voice.
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. It would be nice to change the movies that we already have and substitute the word fuck for the word kill, wherever we could, and some of those movie cliches would change a little bit. Easy on the clutch Bill, you'll fuck that engine again. The majority's ruling in this case sets a dangerous precedent.
serious detriment to the more overriding interest of public health, public morals, or public welfare. This decision makes it possible for any television or radio program, on the slightest suspicion of being a danger to national security or on other pretexts, to likewise face suspension.
Our country is still not safe from the recurrence of this stultifying strife considering our warring religious beliefs and the fanaticism with which some of us cling and claw to these beliefs. we're really going to fuck, yeh, we're going to make love. And it also means the beginning of life, it's the act that begins life, so there's the word hanging around with words like love, and life, and yet on the other hand, it's also a word that we really use to hurt each other with, man. The restriction on freedom need not be greater than is necessary to further the governmental interest.
x x x For when religion divides and its exercise destroys, the State should not stand still. It's an interesting word too, [']cause it's got a double kind of a life-personality-dual, you know, whatever the right phrase is. First of all, it means, sometimes, most of the time, fuck. It's a heavy one that you have toward the end of the argument. The "balancing of interests" test requires that a determination must first be made whether the necessary safeguarding of the public interest involved may be achieved by some other measure less restrictive of the protected freedom.
Its public broadcast on TV of its religious program brings it out of the bosom of internal belief. Hey, well, I don't take no shit, you know what I mean? 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.
Television is a medium that reaches even the eyes and ears of children. Fuck the ump, fuck the ump, fuck the ump, fuck the ump, fuck the ump. 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 broadcast 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 night when the indecent utterances were delivered.
A laissez faire policy on the exercise of religion can be seductive to the liberal mind but history counsels the Court against its blind adoption as religion is and continues to be a volatile area of concern in our country today. The exacting "clear and present danger" test is dispensed with to give way to the "balancing of interests" test in favor of the government's exercise of its regulatory power.
Across the sea and in our shore, the bloodiest and bitterest wars fought by men were caused by irreconcilable religious differences. We're going to make love, yeh, we're going to fuck, yeh, we're going to fuck, yeh, we're going to make love. Granting without conceding that "balancing of interests" is the appropriate test in setting a limitation to free speech, suspension of a television program is a measure way too harsh that it would be inappropriate as the most reasonable means for averting a perceived harm to society.
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. Petitioners 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.