Knee Jerk

Hi Jerry, thanks for soliciting my comments.

Like the other administration responses to this whole Garci/tape thing, the NTC order has all the hallmarks of an ill-conceived, knee-jerk reaction. I think a legal challenge is possible against the unprecedented NTC order. For one, it relates to free speech rights, and therefore has a very high Constitutional hurdle to clear. Put another way: courts generally strike down executive acts which tend to limit free speech.

Second, it involves content which is clearly a matter of "public interest." Again, there are many Philippine and US Supreme Court cases which recognize a "public interest" exception even if the content is "prohibited" material.

Third: who's to say that the tape is the fruit of an illegal wiretap? There has been no determination as yet by the courts, and certainly no one has even been indicted much less convicted for illegal wiretapping. The NTC seems to have made a determination on its own that the material is "wiretapped." What could possibly have been their basis, other than Malacanang instructions? Theoretically, though, the NTC is supposed to be an independent body with quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative powers.

There's also the angle that the tape itself was played by the spokesperson of the Chief Executive. What does that mean, that the Executive can broadcast allegedly illegal content, but TV stations on their own can't?

Hope I've given you a little food for thought with this brief exposition. Again, thanks for posting!

Knee Jerk

Hi Jerry, thanks for soliciting my comments.

Like the other administration responses to this whole Garci/tape thing, the NTC order has all the hallmarks of an ill-conceived, knee-jerk reaction. I think a legal challenge is possible against the unprecedented NTC order. For one, it relates to free speech rights, and therefore has a very high Constitutional hurdle to clear. Put another way: courts generally strike down executive acts which tend to limit free speech.

Second, it involves content which is clearly a matter of "public interest." Again, there are many Philippine and US Supreme Court cases which recognize a "public interest" exception even if the content is "prohibited" material.

Third: who's to say that the tape is the fruit of an illegal wiretap? There has been no determination as yet by the courts, and certainly no one has even been indicted much less convicted for illegal wiretapping. The NTC seems to have made a determination on its own that the material is "wiretapped." What could possibly have been their basis, other than Malacanang instructions? Theoretically, though, the NTC is supposed to be an independent body with quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative powers.

There's also the angle that the tape itself was played by the spokesperson of the Chief Executive. What does that mean, that the Executive can broadcast allegedly illegal content, but TV stations on their own can't?

Hope I've given you a little food for thought with this brief exposition. Again, thanks for posting!

It's all about free speech

My name is Raffy Khan, and I teach the Law of Mass Media class (C120) at the UP College of Mass Communication. This blog is intended to facilitate interaction with, and among, my students.

To my students: As a professorial lecturer, I don't spend much time on campus other than on class day, so if you have any questions about our class discussion, reading assignments, or related topics, please feel free to post it on this blog. If you want to carry on a debate about our subject matter, or something brought up in class that piqued your interest or raised your hackles, feel free to post it!

There won't be any censorship on this blog, but bear in mind Voltaire's admonition: Your right to swing your arms in the air ends where my nose begins.