1. Is movie censorship a prior restraint?
Film is a form of art. Putting a premise that art should be independent and not subject to rules, we can say that censorship negates this independence and voids the very gist of film, which is storytelling. We tell stories, may it be grave or light or unbearable to hear. Film is visual storytelling. But it is in this case, of its visual feat, that movies are bound to influence the audience more than it should. This is where censorship takes the role of restraint. Film's influence over an audience is heavy and is almost uncontrollable. Because stories can be anything under the sun, there are certain films that show violence, sex, profanity, and sensitive thingamajigs that can put harm to audiences, to note, the minority with their permeable minds. Movie censorship is a restraint, but I go against its being a priority. There are films which show you violence to end such violence. There are films which show you cruelty to end such cruelty. Censoring things that may hurt the viewers is acceptable, as long as that offense promotes personal and psychological influence over a person. But if we want the status quo to be shaken, if we want people to think and analyze, if we want change at large, censoring these things is not the only solution there is. Movies should not be censored to justify ignorance. This visual medium mirrors what is happening, and what is happening around is not all pretty for the eyes. What is happening around is far more brutal than what these films show us.
2. Why is the freedom of expression not absolute?The freedom to express ends when it is being used to put a person in bad light. The country, its constitution, gives you this right in accordance to your human rights as a whole. However, there are other fidelities to be considered in exercising such a right. As much as you want to express whatever your mind thinks, if that idea promotes harm (a derogatory statement, to take) then it is crossing the line of other fidelities. You also have the right against false statements, right to privacy, and much more. These are the other fidelities that may be crossed when a person abuses his freedom of expression. It is never absolute since the term "expression" itself is a subjective clause. What you want to express may contain sensitive words. These sensitive words may prove lethal to certain people, thus, making its absolution void. What the premises of this freedom offer sways to how a person uses this. And in swaying, in adapting to situations, this freedom is changing, almost dynamic, and is not absolute.
3. Differentiate 'dangerous tendency test' and 'clear and present danger test'.
Dangerous tendency test is applied to detect whether an act caused evil for a society. When a substantive evil is identified, it is not unconstitutional for a government to interfere. Clear and present danger is when the individuals words are likely to incite violence. Bad tendency is when the individual just says something about violence, and it's primarily been overturned by cases explaining the clear and present danger test in more detail. Under the clear and present danger test, you need to actually have the capability to incite violence around you
For example, a student protester shouts "Ibagsak ang sistema!" would be illegal under the dangerous tendency test. However, clear and present danger analyzes if this student is actually capable of overthrowing the system so it considers and will not declare it illegal.
BINABASA MO ANG
ISKRIBOL (Mga Suka ng Isang Bored na Otistik)
Random[Written in Filipino and konting English] Kompilasyon ng mga mahahabang maiikling kwento, mga anik-anik, mga suka ng isa talagang bored na otistik, mga pighati habang naglalaslas, at iba pang mga walang kwentang kwento. Palakpakan!
