Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 3

Policarpio v.

manila times:

 Policarpio (member of Philippine Bar) seeks to recover damages for publication of 2


articles (claimed to be defamatory, libelous and false…) in the Saturday mirror and daily
mirror.
 Defendant filed joint answer: admitting the formal allegations and denied other
allegations
 CFI: plaintiff had not proven that defendants acted maliciously in publishing articles
 Article published presented plaintiff in a more unfavorable light than she actually was
 It goes without saying that newspapers must enjoy a certain degree of discretion in
determining the manner in which a given event should be presented to the public, and the
importance to be attached thereto, as a news item, and that its presentation in a
sensational manner is not per se illegal. Newspaper may publish news items relative to
judicial, legislative or other official proceedings, which are not of confidential nature,
because the public is entitled to know the truth with respect to such proceedings, which,
being official and non-confidential, are open to public consumption. But, to enjoy immunity,
a publication containing derogatory information must be not only true, but, also, fair, and
it must be made in good faith and without any comments or remarks.
 In the case at bar, aside from containing information derogatory to the plaintiff, the article
published on August 11, 1956, presented her in a worse predicament than that in which
she, in fact, was. In other words, said article was not a fair and true report of the
proceedings there in alluded to. What is more, its sub-title — "PCAC RAPS L.
POLICARPIO ON FRAUD" — is a comment or remark, besides being false. Accordingly,
the defamatory imputations contained in said article are "presumed to be malicious".
 Either they knew the truth about it or they did not know it. If they did, then the publication
would be actually malicious. If they did not or if they acted under a misapprehension of
the facts, they were guilty of negligence in making said statement, for the consequences
of which they are liable solidarily
 We note that the news item published on August 13, 1956, rectified a major inaccuracy
contained in the first article
 REVERSED: pay jointly

Lopez vs CA:

 This week magazine; liable for damages from publication of photo of cruz (private
respondent) –as responsible for the hoax of the yeax.
 Invoked: liberal construction of press freedom; Owned up to the mistake –published
correction as an earnest of its good faith—should not be made to pay at all.
 Facts: fidel cruz sent distress signal to US airforce which relayed message to manila—that
people in babuyan islands were living in terror due to series of killings—simply found fidel
merely wanted transpo home to manila.
 Photos published was switched of private respondent a businessman
 Publication of a person's photograph in connection with an article libelous of a third
person, is a libel on the person whose picture is published, where the acts set out in the
article are imputed to such person
 For liability to arise then without offending press freedom, there is this test to meet: "The
constitutional guarantees require, we think, a federal rule that prohibits a public official
from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct
unless he proves that the statement was made with 'actual malice' — that is, with
knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not."
 Damages reduced
 The correction promptly made by petitioners would thus call for a reduction in the
damages awarded. It should be noted that there was no proof of any actual pecuniary
logs arising from the above publication. It is worthwhile to recall what Justice Malcolm
referred to as the tolerant attitude on the part of appellate courts on this score, the usual
practice being "more likely to reduce damages for libel than to increase them

Miller v. California

 Appellant was convicted of mailing unsolicited sexually explicit material


 A work may be subject to state regulation where that work, taken as a whole, appeals to the
prurient interest in sex; portrays, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined
by the applicable state law; and, taken as a whole, does not have serious literary, artistic, political,
or scientific value.
 The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether "the average person, applying
contemporary community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the
prurient interest,
 (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.
 Appellant conducted a mass mailing campaign to advertise the sale of illustrated books,
euphemistically called "adult"
 prohibiting dissemination or exhibition of obscene material when the mode of dissemination
carries with it a significant danger of offending the sensibilities of unwilling recipients or of
exposure to juveniles.
 three elements must coalesce: it must be established that (a) the dominant theme of the material
taken as a whole appeals to a prurient interest in sex; (b) the material is patently offensive
because it affronts contemporary community standards relating to the description or
representation of sexual matters; and (c) the material is utterly without redeeming social value
 In sum, we (a) reaffirm the Roth holding that obscene material is not protected by the First
Amendment; (b) hold that such material can be regulated by the States, subject to the specific
safeguards enunciated above, without a showing that the material is "utterly without redeeming
social value"; and (c) hold that obscenity is to be determined by applying "contemporary
community standards,"
 Vacated and remanded

Gonzales v. Kalaw-Katigbak
 Kapit patalim—classified “for adults only”
 Permit to exhibit film was granted: with certain changes and deletions
 Classification “for adults only” was without basis
 Sufficiency of the standard: question at issue
 There is justification for an inquiry into controlling standard to the classification
 Obscenity as the basis for any alleged invasion of the right to the freedom of artistic and
literary expression embraced in the free speech and free press guarantees of the constitution
 Press Freedom: may be identified with the liberty to discuss publicly and truthfully any
matter of public concern without censorship or punishment. This is not to say that such
freedom, as is the freedom of speech, absolute. It can be limited if “there be a clear and
present danger of a substantive evil that the State has the right to prevent”
 Opinion of court: to avoid unconstitutional taint on its creation, the power of respondent
board is limited to the classification of films.
 To abide by the principle that freedom of expression is the rule and restrictions the
exemption. The power to exercise prior restraint is not to be presumed, rather the
presumption is against its validity.
 Determining what is obscene: The early leading standard of obscenity allowed material to
be judged merely by the effect of an isolated excerpt upon particularly susceptible
persons.
 The Hicklin Test: Some American courts adopted this standard but later decisions have
rejected it and substituted this test: whether to the average person, applying contemporary
community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to
prurient interest.
 "Obscene material is material which deals with sex in a manner appealing to prurient
interest. The portrayal of sex, e.g., in art, literature and scientific works, is not itself
sufficient reason to deny material the constitutional protection of freedom of speech and
press.
 Dismissed petition: not enough votes for grave abuse of discretion in classification.

Freedom of religion:

Aglipay v. Ruiz