Miller V.S.
California Ruling
Facts
Marvin Miller is an owner of a business in California
which distributes explicit or pornographic books and
films. He was was convicted because he sent these
phonographic materials through mail in a restaurant in
Newport, California. The materials consists of pictures
and drawings very explicitly depicting men and women in
engaging in a variety of sexual activities.
The court Obscenity is determined by applying
Issue
Whether or not the distribution of obscene materials
by mail is protected under the First Amendment’s
freedom of speech guarantee?
a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
NO. The Supreme Court said that obscene
materials are not protected by freedom of speech
guarantee. Furthermore, the court ruled that the
publication of Miller had no literary, artistic, political or
scientific value and found that hard-core portrayal of
sexual conduct, for its own sake and for the ensuing
commercial gain, does not fit the articulated standard.
“contemporary community standards”
Test for obscenity
(a) whether the average person, applying contemporary
community standards, would find that the work, taken as
(b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently
offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the
applicable state law and
(c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious
literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

Pita v.s. Court of Appeals
Facts
The Mayor of Manila, Ramon Bagatsing, initiated an
“Anti-Smut Campaign” in 1983. The police was able to
confiscate magazines, publications and other reading
materials believed to be obscene, pornographic and
indecent from establishments along Manila sidewalks.
The police then burned the seized materials along Recto,
in the presence of Mayor and several officers and
members of various student organizations.
way of a search warrant.
Among the materials seized and burned was the
Pinoy Playboy magazines which was published and co-
edited by Pita. Pita (the petitioner) then filed a case
against Mayor Bagatsing in order to stop the confiscation
of his magazine.
The court used the Kottinger ruling to define what is
Pita claimed that the magazine is a decent, artistic
and educational magazine which is not per se obscene
and is protected by the Constitutional guarantee of
freedom of speech
RTC ruling
(1) “To whether the tendency of the matter charged as
Seizure was valid
obscene, is to deprave or corrupt those whose minds are
C.A. ruling
Affirmed the ruling of RTC
Issue
Whether or not the seizure of Pita’s magazine
violated the guarantee of the freedom of expression
Ruling
YES. The Supreme Court said that the government
authorities have not shown the required proof to justify a
ban and to warrant confiscation of Pinoy Playboy. First of
all, they were not possessed of a lawful court order in
finding the said materials to be pornography and second
authorizing them to carry out a search and seizure by
If the pictures in the magazine was not used for
art’s sake but for commercial purposes, then it is not
entitled to any Constitutional protection
obscene.
In determining the existence of obscenity through the
Kottinger Ruling, it must be asked that
open to such immoral influences and into whose hands a
publication or other article charged as being obscene
may fall.”
(2) “is that which shocks the ordinary and common sense
of men as an indecency.”

Movie and Television Review and Classification Board The word “all” covers all television programs
v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation
whether religious, public affairs, news documentary, etc.
and since “The Inside Story” is a television program it is
Facts within the jurisdiction of the MTRCB.

The Inside Story of ABS-CBN aired “Prosti-tuition”

which depicted female students of Philippine Women’s Furthermore, Supreme Court cited the ruling in
University secretly working as prostitutes to enable them Iglesia ni Cristo vs. Court of Appeals which INC sought to
to pay for tuition fees. The show caused an uproar in the be exempted in MTRCB’s review power. INC argued that
PWU community.
religious programs are not included in the term
PWU and MTRCB alleged that the “Prosti-tuition” “television programs” It is significant to note that in
episode ruined the name of PWU and led to harassment Iglesia ni Cristo vs. Court of Appeals, the court declared
of its female students.
that freedom of religion is given preferred status by the
MRTCB alleges that (1) the respondents (ABS-CBN) framers of our laws.

did not submit “The Inside Story” for the MTRCB to

review and (2) exhibited the episode without the approval However, there has been no declaration at on that
of MTRCB which violates Section 7 of P.D 1986 and the freedom of expression and of the press has a preferred
MRTCB Rules and Regulations.
status. If this Court, in Iglesia ni Cristo v CA, did not
ABS-CBN contends that “The Inside Story” is a exempt religious programs from the jurisdiction and
covered by the constitutional provision on Freedom of review power of petitioner MTRCB, with more reason,
expression and of the press and that MTRCB has no there is no justification to exempt "The Inside Story”.
authority to impose any form of restraint upon them.
which, according to respondents, is protected by the
constitutional provision on freedom of expression and of
Issue the press, a freedom bearing no preferred status.
Whether or not MTRCB has the power to review the
television program “The Inside Story”
Freedom of Expression has no preferred status

Ruling
Yes. The law gives MTRCB the power to screen,
review and examine all television program because P.D
1986 gives MTRCB “the power to screen, review, and
examine “all television programs”

Reno vs American Civil Liberties Union suppresses a large amount of speech that adults have a
constitutional right to receive and to address to one
Facts another.

The 1996 Communication Decency Act was Although the government has an interest in
intended to protect minors from explicit material on the protecting children from harmful materials, it is not
internet by criminalizing the transmission of “obscene of enough to justify an unnecessarily broad suppression of
indecent” messages to anyone under 18 years old. It also speech addressed to adults

criminalizes transmission of information which depicts or

describes “sexual or excretory activities or organs” in a SC distinguishes Internet from radio -> Radio broadcasts
manner deemed “offensive” by contemporary community were subject to greater regulation than the print media
standards
because it is intrusive; listeners have no idea what they
will hear before tuning in. On the other hand, Internet
The American Civil Liberties argued that certain users must “click on” websites and usually have a
parts of the Communication Decency Act were general idea of whether they are likely to view
unconstitutional. The Government however contend the objectionable material.

CDA was similar to decency laws that were prior upheld.

Issue

Whether or not certain provisions of the 1996

Communication Decency Act violate first amendment
which guarantees the freedom of speech?

Ruling

YES. The Supreme Court distinguished the

differences between Internet communication and
previous types of communication the Court had ruled on.

Justice Stevens said in order to deny minors access

to potentially harmful speech, the Act also effectively
Disini Jr v Sec of Justice
FACTS
  Petitioners claim that the means adopted by the
cybercrime law for regulating undesirable cyberspace
activities violate certain of their constitutional rights.
However, the government asserts that the law merely
seeks to reasonably put order into cyberspace activities,
punish wrongdoings, and prevent hurtful attacks on the
system.
expression by prohibiting the electronic transmission of
Petitioners challenge the constitutionality of 21
provisions of the cybercrime law that regard certain acts
as crimes and impose penalties for their commission as
well as provisions that would enable the government to
track down and penalize violators.
The government argued that unsolicited commercial
ISSUE
(1) Whether or not Section 4(c)(3) violates freedom
of speech
(2) Whether or not Section 12 violates the right to
privacy and protection from the government’s intrusion
into online communications
level of protection as other constitutionally guaranteed
(3) Whether or not Section 19 which authorizes the
Department of Justice to restrict computer data to be
found in violation of the Act violates the right to freedom
of expression
RULING
YES. The Supreme Court of Philippines declared (A)
Section 4(c)(3), (B) section 12, and (C) section 19 of
t h e  C y b e r c r i m e P r e v e n t i o n A c t o f 2 0 1 2 a s
unconstitutional.  
(1) Whether or not Section 4(c)(3) violates freedom
of speech
It held that Section 4(c)(3) violated the right to freedom of
unsolicited commercial communications. This section
prohibits the transmissions of unsolicited commercial
electronic communications, commonly known as spams,
that seek to advertise, sell, or offer for sale of products
and services unless the recipient affirmatively consents.
communications amount to btoh nuisance and trespass
because they tend to interfere with online services and
enter a user’s domain without permission.
The court noted that spams are a category of
commercial speech, which does not receive the same
forms of expression, but nonetheless entitled to
protection
  (2) Whether or not Section 12 violates the right to
privacy and protection from the government’s intrusion
into online communications
The Court explained that section 12 may lead to
disclosure of private communications.

 The Supreme Court applied a two-part test to

determine whether a communication is entitled to right to
privacy.

A.) Whether the person claiming the right has a

legitimate expectation of privacy over communication -
The Supreme Court stated that internet users have
subjective reasonable expectation of privacy over their
communication

B.) Whether his expectation of privacy can be

regarded as objectively reasonable in society - Court did
not find the expectation as objectively reasonable
because data sent through internet only discloses their
IP Addresses

The Court views the law as “virtually limitless,

enabling law enforcement to engage in “fishing
expedition”

Thus, Section 12 is in violation of the right to privacy

because it lacked sufficient specificity and definiteness in
collecting real-time computer data.

(3) Whether or not Section 19 which authorizes the

Department of Justice to restrict computer data to be
found in violation of the Act violates the right to freedom
of expression

It struck down Section 19 of the Act for giving the

government the authority to restrict or block access to
computer data without any judicial warrant. The Supreme
Court recognizes that computer data constitutes a
personal property, entitled to protection against
unreasonable searches and seizures.

Packingham vs North Carolina
Facts
Lester Packingham was convicted of taking
“indecent liberties” with a minor in 2002, as a 21-year-old
college student.
whether or not the sex offender directly interacted with a
Packingham was later arrested in 2010 after
authorities came across a post on his Facebook profile,
thanking God for having a parking ticket dismissed. He
was arrested for violating North Carolina’s laws regarding
convicted sex offenders, which barred the offender’s
access to social media websites.
government interest.
In his defense, Packingham argued that the law
violated his First Amendment rights. He was convicted in
trial court, which found that the state had a weighty
interest in keeping sexual predators off of social media
websites for the “protection of minors.”
In this case, although the government has a
The North Carolina Court of Appeals reversed and
held that the social media website provision of the law
was unconstitutional.
because of the vast number of functions that social
Issue
Whether or not the law prohibiting registered sex
offenders from accessing the internet, where minors are
known to be active and have accounts, regardless of
minor, violate the First Amendment?
Ruling
YES. The Court held that, in order to be valid under the
First Amendment, a content-neutral regulation of speech
must be narrowly tailored to serve a significant
In other words, the law cannot burden substantially
more speech than necessary to advance the
government’s legitimate interest.
legitimate interest in protecting children from abuse, this
law too broadly restricted access to all sorts of websites.
Even if it were limited only to social media websites, the
law would still unconstitutionally restrict speech
media websites perform in the modern world.
First Amendment jurisprudence has never allowed
for such a broad regulation of speech, and similarly
broad restrictions have been struck down. However, a
state could accomplish the same goal by enacting a
more narrowly written statute.