SC bans showing of anti-Islam film

A+
A
A-

Filipino Muslims shout slogans during a rally outside the Supreme Court in Manila on Monday to petition the highest court to ban the public showing of ‘Innocence of Muslims.’ The front banner reads: ‘There is no God but Allah, Muhammad is the messenger.’ AP

MANILA, Philippines—The Supreme Court has banned the public screening of the anti-Islam film “Innocence of Muslims,” saying it infringes on religious rights.

The high tribunal on Tuesday directed the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB) to bar any public showing of the American-produced film that has sparked violence across the globe.

However, the high court did not rule if the Philippines should ask YouTube to block a 14-minute trailer of the movie, which mocks the Prophet Muhammad as fraud, womanizer and child molester.

The petitioners, who are members of the Bangsamoro Nation, mentioned that the film could be searched on Google and viewed on its video-sharing firm YouTube but failed to include them as respondents in their petition for a temporary restraining order, the Supreme Court said during Tuesday’s deliberation.

They only named as respondents Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa Jr., MTRCB chairman Mary Grace Poe-Llamanzares and Commission on Information and Communication Technology chief Ivan John Uy.

The petitioners argued that the film, produced by self-described Coptic Christian Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, is an “invasion of constitutional guarantee of free exercise of religion and to practice religion without fear or hatred.”

In their 15-page plea, petitioners  Agakhan “Benladin” Sharief, Datu Drieza Lininding, Datu Haj Ansari Alonto and Datu Nasser Dimapinto said that the government has the responsibility to ban the showing or any promotion of the “anti-Islamic film” that depicted their prophet as “a womanizer, homosexual and child abuser” and whose life was that of a “fool, philanderer and religious fake.”

The low-budget movie has angered Muslims in many parts of the world with protests turning violent resulting in the deaths of at least 51 people, including the US ambassador to Libya.

It also has renewed debate over freedom of expression in the US, Europe and even in the Philippines.

On Friday, law professor Harry Roque defied a ban by the University of the Philippines and held a screening of the film in his class, citing freedom of expression and academic freedom. With Associated Press

Originally posted at 4:09 p.m.

Disclaimer: The comments uploaded on this site do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of management and owner of INQUIRER.net. We reserve the right to exclude comments that we deem to be inconsistent with our editorial standards.

  • http://twitter.com/sandpiper64 batang4

    so much for democracy and free speech. bye, you two. enjoy your trip.

    • marionics

      wala din yan. di naman na ban yung youtube e hahaha.

  • http://www.facebook.com/republika.pilipinas.94 Republika Pilipinas

    Definitely contradictory to the freedom of expression. Ironically, muslims have the freedom to murder innocent civilians, like, the US ambassador to Libya.

    • tarikan

      Cutting the heads of the unbelievers live on video is not as heinous as the showing of the film. Misplaced righteousness. 

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IFH25DOIW5AV7S5I7GE2LSXIVA killswitch

        Those are not Muslims at all in the real sense.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/ZNRLBZ7P4TYVDT6OCWGAHAWMLI jpen55

       

      This is for you Republika Pilipinas – Sana Masaya ka rin

      Jerusalem (CNN) — The entrance door to a century-old
      monastery near Jerusalem was burned away and anti-Christian graffiti was
      sprayed on the walls Tuesday, in what Israeli police said appeared to be a
      nationalistic attack.

      The phrase “Jesus is a monkey” was
      painted on the walls of Latrun Monastery in large orange letters, as well as
      the words “Migron” and “Maoz Esther,” referring to two
      illegal Israeli settler outposts in the West Bank.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_I4MZTFGCRWI6D5ER5MNPWLUQ2Q samuel

      Change your name Republika ng Pilipinas if you dont respect Muslims…..

  • marionics

    “The high tribunal on Tuesday directed the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB) not to allow the public showing of the film”
    now THIS is weird. is there a pending application for the showing of the film with the MTRCB? kung wala e di this is a blanket ban on whomsoever will make any such application in the future? now THAT is oppressive and will be violative of due process because whoever that person is in the future was never impleaded in this case. moreover, that would be in the nature of a mandatory injunction wherein the sc mandates the MTRCB to prohibit something. sounds kinda convoluted he he atsaka there should be a showing of great urgency due to grave and irreparable damage at the very least

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_EDXEVEFHW2ZT5VWHDWBNM6XGE4 RyanE

    Wise decision! No public showing but interested persons may watch it privately in their own homes. 

  • Banono

    Muslims disagreeing with and protesting the video “Innocence of Muslims” depicting Muhammad as a fraud, womanizer, child abuser and murderer as recorded in their sacred writings can be likened to Christians disagreeing and protesting a video clip by other people or religion depicting the Lord Jesus Christ as humble, a healer, a Nazarene and a Saviour, and asking SC to ban its public showing.

    If the above statement sounds strange then realize that it is just what is happening now with this innocence video.

    • ApoNiLolo

      Your statement is one-sided and myopic as your belief.

      Try –  …can be likened to the Roman Catholic Church disagreeing and protesting a movie depicting Jesus as an ordinary but charismatic man, married to Mary Magdalene, who got descendants living in France whom the Opus Die are trying to eliminate, and asking MTRCB to ban its public showing.

      Now, isn’t that more realistic and down to earth. >: D

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/7HLF46XBMBEGQOUZLZM5LCJO24 Shynon

        I think there was even a regular cartoon character of Jesus in some US  Tv show as far as i can remember.  Was there any person killed?, was the US blamed as a whole nation?  Was the show prohibited? i guess there was none.  Something must be wrong with these Muslims who blame every US or Non Christian innocent people.  Is this the Muslim norms ?

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/ZNRLBZ7P4TYVDT6OCWGAHAWMLI jpen55

         

        Shynon is right and I know he/she will still be happy with the
        following

        Jerusalem (CNN) — The entrance door to a century-old
        monastery near Jerusalem was burned away and anti-Christian graffiti was
        sprayed on the walls Tuesday, in what Israeli police said appeared to be a
        nationalistic attack.

        The phrase “Jesus is a monkey” was
        painted on the walls of Latrun Monastery in large orange letters, as well as
        the words “Migron” and “Maoz Esther,” referring to two
        illegal Israeli settler outposts in the West Bank.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IFH25DOIW5AV7S5I7GE2LSXIVA killswitch

        Read Middle Eastern history. 

      • Banono

        You miss the point, the attributes I am describing above whether it is of Muhammad of Islam or the Lord Jesus Christ of the Bible is that all of those can be found in the respective sacred writings of each religion.

        Now if you can find those labels you just mentioned above in the Bible, only then can your argument be valid. On the other hand you might be describing the Jesus of the Gnostics, in that case we Biblical Christians will not bother to give it any attention because ever since the days of the apostles there have been a different Jesus being peddled around by false teachers.

      • ApoNiLolo

        No, I didn’t miss a point nor skip a beat. It’s you who is clouded in bigotry and totally immersed in your bible. You didn’t realized (or ignorant) that what I mentioned was an actual event that happened a few years back.

        Mag basa-basa ka naman ng ibang reading materials, not only the bible so you won’t be left behind!

      • Banono

        I meant no offense by that, in fact I am very much aware of what you are talking since I am in europe when this thing is being debated, but since you say its the Roman Catholic Church I must admit you are right but as far as Biblical Christians are concernced those labels were simply not in the Bible.

      • ApoNiLolo

        I know some scriptures were not included in the bible since Christian doctrines was established in 1st council of Nicaea. Some of them, as you mentioned was Gnostic beliefs, the scriptures of Mary Magdalene and, I don’t know if it is true, regarding Judas Escariot.

        But that’s beside the point. For a peaceful co-existence among different religion, tolerance and respect of each others belief is the key.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IFH25DOIW5AV7S5I7GE2LSXIVA killswitch

        And your teachers aren’t false and infallible as you would like to believe, right? Guess, what? Other sects believe that your religion and teachers are false, too.

      • Banono

        You might be referring to some so-called Christians who only listens to their pastors, ministers or televangelists tell them to get rich or do this do that and be a member. They love their group or leaders to the point that they no longer study or follow their Bibles.

        No, I am one of those Biblical Christians whose final teacher is the Bible no more no less as we are always reminded that:

        “even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!” (Galatians 1:8-9)

        And as for you if you are really after the truth, then realize that your Quran commanded you to believe in what we, the People of the Book have. So let me encourage you to read the Bible because that is what true Jews and Christians have.

    • http://www.facebook.com/hadi.a.5 Hadi A

      Banono, what are you talking about??? have u ever read Islam’s sacred writings???? no where can u find such absurd claims about the prophet of Islam. My guess is you r clueless about Islam.

      • Banono

        Again here’s another innocent Muslim, it could be that I have read your sacred writings (Quran and hadiths) despite being a Christian while you haven’t.

        If you want proof, check the following up which are but some of those proofs as regards the film at issue here:

        Sahi Bukhari Hadith #143, page 700

        Al-Tabari VIII:96

        Quran Surah 33:37

        Quran Surah 9:29

        Quran Surah 8:41
         Etc., etc.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IFH25DOIW5AV7S5I7GE2LSXIVA killswitch

        Those verses just proved your ignorance. Go ask an Islamic scholar about those verses for enlightenment.

      • Banono

        Do you think I am dumb to approach a Muslim with those assertions? Not unless I want to be hacked to death, no! everyone knows the mindset of Muslims that they cannot handle the truth nor any criticism of their religion.

        In fact the only tolerant and peaceful Muslims are those who don’t really take seriously the teachings of the Quran nor the traditions taught in the Hadiths, they may be innocent but at least in a nice way, unlike those others who listen only to the fiery exhortations of their imams, to kill and kill and do jihad.

  • taga_ilog

    Now, this decision would only make people want to watch this film, knowing the pinoy psyche, 

  • Hfxwst

    This is a huge mistake.

    The biggest issue facing the Philippines, and the issue which the country MUST overcome, is the intrusion of religion into government.  There can be no freedom of religion until freedom from religion is assured.

    There should be a national dialogue begun on this issue.

  • tarikan

    Pirated CD’s of “Innocence of Muslims” might be available in your local muslim shops. Go get it before the MTRCB burns them. 

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IFH25DOIW5AV7S5I7GE2LSXIVA killswitch

      Does Christianity approve of falsely witnessing against others?

  • raytheist

    Granted, the film itself does not flatter Mohammed or Islam.  But what specific “religious rights” are violated by showing the film?  There is no right to never be offended by the opinions of others. People are free to believe whatever myths and legends they wish, but there is no intrinsic right or expectation that silly myths and legends will never be challenged.  

  • Facile1

    Hmmm, so the Philippine Supreme Court violates the Filipino people’s right to free speech and freedom of the press under the guise of freedom of religion?

    How are the creator and the presenters of this film violating the Muslims’ right to practise their religion? Does the creator and presenters have guns to enforce compliance? And even if they do have guns, isn’t their use of weapons subject to Philippine LAW enforcement agencies?

    Clearly the protections guaranteed under the Philippine Constitution and the Bill of Rights are no more important to the present-day Philippine Supreme Court than it was to Marcos in his day.

  • kismaytami

    Another useless decision from SC. There’s Youtube and many other websites where the film can be viewed. I believe there are more burning and urgent issues that the SC needs to decide. But why the hurry with this religion thing? Are the justices afraid that terrorists will storm their court if not granted? Just like how these muslims normally behave.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IFH25DOIW5AV7S5I7GE2LSXIVA killswitch

      Watch the terrorist word. You and your ilk and ancestors are the terrorists or have conjugated with foreign terrorists and adopted their religion.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OHOD5EA75DBBUH53UKLRXRK764 Mang Teban

    I agree with the Supreme Court’s decision on banning the anti-Islam film.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/ZNRLBZ7P4TYVDT6OCWGAHAWMLI jpen55

    Can the Christian accept the Phrase painted on the wall of Latrun Monastery in Israel that says “Jesus is a Monkey” If you can accept it then no doubt why talk so much negatively about Mohammad. 

    • Banono

      Never violently reacting to such an insult is the mark of true Christians in accordance with the Bible and in no way accepts such as being true, in fact even a secular but virtuous person will simply let such offense pass.
      As it is written:

      “Fools show their annoyance at once, but the prudent overlook an insult.” (Proverbs 12:16)

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IFH25DOIW5AV7S5I7GE2LSXIVA killswitch

        No wonder Christianity does all kinds of insults to itself. And not reacting at all to it is tantamount to being accessory and approval of it. Need I say, your silence means ‘Yes’?

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/ZNRLBZ7P4TYVDT6OCWGAHAWMLI jpen55

         Your God Jesus is called Monkey you can still accept. Tell you Jesus (Isa-his original name) is only our prophet but we do not allow anybody to insult him. In fact you are godless and coward

      • Banono

        In case you don’t know, the Jesus of the Quran is not the same as the Jesus of the Bible (for the fact that the Jesus of the Quran did not die on a cross while the Jesus of the Bible died on the cross for the forgiveness of sins and rose again on the third day).

        Now it is not that we are cowards if ever somebody would insult the Lord Jesus Christ, it is because we are commanded not to avenge because it is the Lord Himself who will avenge Himself.

    • Diepor

      Who cares .

  • NoWorryBHappy

    This ruling is CRAP. And simply BS. It is not necessary.
    If the movie violates your religion, then don’t watch it.
    You have the freedom to watch it or not watch it.
    At the same time. you don’t have the right to tell anybody what not to believe,
    and what to believe, what not to say or do and what to do or say.
    Anyways, this doesn’t  change anything. It’s all over the internet.

    • niceguy60

      With freedom comes responsibility. Like attending a flag ceremony.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IFH25DOIW5AV7S5I7GE2LSXIVA killswitch

      Your mother is a whore. If you got offended, then it is your fault you read it. But other readers will surely know that your mother is a whore.

      • NoWorryBHappy

         See ? And you said that because it was your freedom.
        Nobody could have prevented you from saying that.
        Is it respectful ? No. You lost your case.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jackie-Debs/1330149028 Jackie Debs

         Right, so the supreme court should ban you from ever saying that again? Grow up. If you idiotic muslims can’t handle the fact that people believe your religion is a joke and that your prophet was a vicious warlord who slept with a 9 year old girl (TRUE) then maybe you should look inward at your own belief system rather than at others for mocking it.

        If you are dumb enough to get on your knees and bow to a man made building 5 times a day, you surely aren’t capable of logical debate about such things. So you can get back to burning American flags and shooting guns off in the street like wild animals. You goofballs will always be looked down upon by civilized people.

      • benjamin ben

         FACT is verifiability or something that has really occured and what you were saying here don’t define that. I think the word FALSE for that statements is very appropriate 

      • Diepor

        Any point?

      • tagamasid_kami

         This is a comment of a sick person.
        I’m sure Muslims don’t share his hatred for his mother, female relatives and other women.
        killswitch should see a psychiatrist before he becomes the next Mohammad ATta.

  • Banono

    I ask when is telling the truth infringes on somebody’s freedom of expression unless that person wants to hide something.

    In the video clip “Innocence of Muslims” what is portrayed as accusations against Muhammad as being fraud, womanizer, child abuser and murderer were not invented by any people nor by any other religion but wholly what is indeed recorded in the sacred writings of Islam, especially in the various Hadiths.

    The innocence of Muslims lies in the fact that they are not aware of it and those who do tries hard to dampen it either by trivializing them or by outright denial.
    Yet for the sake of fairness and necessity I agree that with SC’s decision to ban the public showing of this film for the interest of public peace, but only public showing not private ones for then it will be a violation of the freedom of information of each citizen.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IFH25DOIW5AV7S5I7GE2LSXIVA killswitch

      ‘Truth’ from an ignoramuse, bigot or hateful person is not truth. Anything you can cite which upholds your supposed truth?

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/ZNRLBZ7P4TYVDT6OCWGAHAWMLI jpen55

    Muslims are taught to respect other religions. Unfortunately others are taught to insult.

    • Banono

      It’s either you are one of those innocent Muslims who don’t know much about Islam and whom the film wants to inform or you are an outright liar, for I will show you right from your Quran just a verse or two (for there’s so many of them) that will clearly contradict your statement regarding your religion.

      Surah 2:191 says “And slay them wherever ye catch them.” And

      Surah 2:216 says “Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you.”

      Now check them up in your so-called holy book.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IFH25DOIW5AV7S5I7GE2LSXIVA killswitch

        You are definitely ignorant how those verses came about. Those verses are for self-defense when they were under attack. And fighting against enemies was forbidden until there was no other choice. 

      • Banono

        Oh really? If only space and time will allow me in this forum I can load you up with so many verses from the Quran that simply shows Islam does not respect other religion but would like to see them submit to their desert god and his prophet.

        But then why would people need not look them up from your sacred books when all they need to do is to look into world history how Islam was propagated by the sword.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/ZNRLBZ7P4TYVDT6OCWGAHAWMLI jpen55

        Banono Surah 2:191 is applied only to godless people like you which you should understand. Fighting is a must when there is oppression and Muslims are not free to practice their Islamic belief.  Drinking, womanizing and gambling are all bad for you but you like it much. To be kind to others is what your religion is teaching but are you practicing it instead of hurting others. Study the Quran and become a Muslim. Millions of people around the world including Priests and Nuns, intellectual people and many others embraced Islam. Can you name one good Muslim embraced your religion. Make your judgement.

      • Banono

        Then your answer gives you away man, for you are saying that Islam respects the belief of other people yet that one Quran verse (out of many) that tells you to kill applies to “godless” person like me?

        If I do these expose of Islam teachings, it is because we (Biblical Christians) are taught in the Bible that to love God is to hate ev!l (Psalm 97:10, Proverbs 8:13) nevertheless that stops short of telling us to kill those who differ from our belief or those who do not believe at all, on the other hand we have to pray for them that God may also give them the wisdom to see what is right.

        Further we are commanded to “Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.” (Ephesians 5:11)

    • mad_as_Hamlet

      Pardon me, but if that is true, I’d rather have Muslims respect buildings.  Especially if there are people inside.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IFH25DOIW5AV7S5I7GE2LSXIVA killswitch

        Don’t generalize. I’d rather have Christians respecting innocent people rather than bombing every one or whole cities. Does Nagasaki and Hiroshima ring a bell? 

      • mad_as_Hamlet

        Do check your facts and analogy, please. Japan and the USA were good chums at that time, right? There was even a declaration of peace by the USA right after the Hawaiian dance, right?  And the Phiippines asked Japan to drop sushi on Davao City, then shashimii on Manila, right?  Before asking us that they would like to surf at Lingayen Gulf, right?

      • beerhunters

        he will not understand satire and sarcasm!

      • beerhunters

        I said they’ll not understand wit and sarcasm! “palo sa kabayo, latay sa tao.”

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/HQ3IST5DNKVHEP7QJJL6GZQB6M bab

    Muslims should thank the SC for issuing the banning decree, favoring their petitions.This is a triumph of freedom itself: relief for  trampled rights, or redress for grievance against transgression. BUT, the most fundamental issue here is not so much the banning of the controversial film which denigrated the Holy Prophet,(S. A.W.), but more on the recognition that Islam is not merely a religion but the way of life among Muslims, where the spheres of mundane interlocks with celestial existence. In fact, this mark the difference of Muslims with other religious groups. Muslims would take serious offense if Jesus, Moses, (peace be upon them) are insulted, too. Therefore. every believer should abhors violence and destruction against creation, which is the core divine message of Islam. 

  • opinyonlangpo

    Let’s hope this satisfies the muslims, after all Philippines was not responsible for making the film.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/EGDLOIFBHBB7GOMUWVB7BXFCRM charlie

    What kind of ruling is this?  Anyone is free to express whatever he wants and let other people judge whether it is true or not. Is the SC now telling us what we ought to watch and believe base on the biases of any religion. This is BS. It  only shows that muslims are like immature kids that react violently whenever taunted by outside source. You guys at the SC dont have the balls to stand up for what is right! 

    • beerhunters

      this is the will of Allah!! ha ha ha!!  not the SC’s decision! “Allah is our Lord, Mohammed is our Leader, Qur’an is our Constitution, Shariah is our Law, Shahadat(martyrdom) is our Desire, Jihad is our Way, To Chop Off the hands and heads of unbelieversINFIDELS wherever we find them-is our Bounden Duty.”Allahu Akbar!

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IFH25DOIW5AV7S5I7GE2LSXIVA killswitch

        An idiot and ignoramuse indeed you are. Guess your father is a priest.

      • beerhunters

        the real muslims are the batanguenos! You know why?? Because when they are engaged in a conversation they always invoke the name of “Allah” in what they say, as in the phrase “Allah ..e”. as used in the sentence “”Allah ..e, Ikaw ‘ga’y nakapananghalian na?” And beware, when angered, a batangueno’s favorite is the “beinte nueve”!

      • beerhunters

        There you are a psuedo- muslim whose cranium was sodomized by and filled with the imams’ stinky smegma , as usual, goes berserk, spouting filth and venom.

      • beerhunters

        Praise the Pedophile Mohammed(PBUH=pus be upon him)

      • beerhunters

        Praise the Pervert Mohammed(PBUH=poop be upon him)

      • mark_john21

        I doubt if you are really representing the real Muslim thinking. I hope you’re not fake.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_J7CZYPZWNB37S6GTPBJQF6Y7BM Fight D Bigots

      The Filipino Muslims did not react violently. In fact their action to bring their case to court is commendable. This is in sharp contrast to the violent reactions of Muslims in other parts of the world.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IFH25DOIW5AV7S5I7GE2LSXIVA killswitch

      The outsiders are the ones immature. I wonder if Christians are taught to taunt falsely other religions. For sure Christ did not.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_GRVAJUYIO6PRIAPQHNE6MYKNEQ Lando

    This is national security secret ??? – “In the Philippines, no one cares
    about Scarborough Shoal …..we cannot enforce even our coastal
    protection” – Sen. Trillanes told Chinese Government

  • mad_as_Hamlet

    Not having read the SC’s decision, I can only surmise that the Court must have focused on the issue of “public: showing of the film. But in that case, is not primary jurisdiction with the MTRCB? And, was there a copy of the film undergoing review by the MTRCB at the time the petition with the SC was filed? May the SC exercise the powers of the MTRCB to review movies as granted to the MTRCB by PD 1986?

    If it were a book, would the SC have also ruled to ban its sale and distribution?  Is the Supreme Court a constitutional Censor?  What is “prior restraint”?

    If a “historical figure,” real or mythical, is claimed to have been portrayed falsely in a a book, film, poem, essay, painting, sculpture, etc, does banning such portrayal involve a finding by the SC that in  fact the portrayal was indeed false?  Are Justices competent to make such a finding? Or is it sufficient for the SC to say that regardless of whether it is true or false, it does not matter and may still be banned? But is not the petition filed in this case based on the claim that the film depicting their prophet as ““a womanizer, homosexual and child abuser” and whose life was that of a “fool, philanderer and religious fake”” is a false portrayal? Or were the petitioners also implying that it didn’t matter either? In which case, they don’t really care after all whether their prophet was “a womanizer, homosexual and child abuser” and whose life was that of a “fool, philanderer and religious fake.” But does that not make their petition a sham and frivolous one? Or is this a case of kowtowing to the demands of the believers of a particular religion because they argued before the court in an “ad baculum” fashion, that is, ban it or else.

    It would have been different if the MTRCB was reviewing the film because it was submitted to them and hence they could classify it or prohbit its exhibition under the grounds enumerated by PD 1986. And not merely, as stated in the above news article, because “it infringes religious rights.”

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/S5XUATIBTIKC46HFFV7IDJAARY Ed

    The movie does not prevent muslims from practicing religion. It is just a point of view. It may be insulting but again it is a point of view.
    For the muslims it is a great challenge to their belief. Mobilizing, or resorting to violence, to stop the film just shows how insecure they are with their belief. I dont mind if my God is depicted cruelly by someone else. If i believe in something i wont mind how other would portray him.
    But by this decision the SC has just provide an opening for a more fearsome and long lasting consequences that would destroy the democratic fiber on which all beliefs should stand to benefit.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IFH25DOIW5AV7S5I7GE2LSXIVA killswitch

      Will it be Ok if your mother is depicted a whore?

  • warillaman

    does SC knows what they are doing? even american SC don’t create any ruling for people’s freedom of expression, I don’t know why they use the word infringe right of religion over freedom of expression which more paramount and guarranted in any constitution in any country in this planet! I thinkSC is more scared they might be bombed and killed that’s why they ban it!

  • Simon Ward

    Cowed by the threat of violence. If this were an isolated incident, I could perhaps excuse this spineless decision. But I would bet there are already a dozen similar films in production. Cartoons of Muhammed are already sprouting like mushrooms.

  • NiJuSan

    …all these comments about the SC not doing the right thing.. why would you want to watch it. it’s a cheap budgeted movie…

    • Diepor

      I want to have the wright to choose not to watch it . This is a banana republic desission.

      • NiJuSan

        You can watch it in youtube anyway… so why criticize SC for banning the public viewing..

    • IsipPinoy

      Maybe you should ask also why there are millions of Filipinos watch corny, “cheap budgeted” local movies. Because that’s their freedom! In a democracy you have the freedom to be smart or stupid.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/DEU7VDYWEDLWONECWJ47FFNH7A Danny

    The film “Innocence of  Muslims”, for the sake of truth and historical records, depicts the real events and facts about Muhammad’s life. Hence, the film should not be labeled as anti-Muslim or anti-Islam. It is a “wake-up-call” to all Muslims. They must not be deprived of this opportunity to “educate” themselves. I am saddened by this decision of the Supreme Court.

    • mark_john21

      the film depicts the real events and facts about Muhammad’s life?
      Better educate yourself first because you know nothing about Islam. Your post says it all.

      • Banono

        Did you ask for some references? Then look up for the following to cite a few:
        Sahi Bukhari Hadith #143, page 700
        Al-Tabari VIII:96
        Quran Surah 33:37
        Quran Surah 9:29
        Quran Surah 8:41

        I hope you will be satisfied by what you will find, provided you know also the background story for the references from Quran.

        Enjoy your reseach!

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/DEU7VDYWEDLWONECWJ47FFNH7A Danny

         Your conclusion reflects your limited sanity and this suggests your poor ability to read between the lines. Though I have a christian name, this doesn’t mean that I’m unaware of history, specially about other religion. In fact, my research about Islam, strengthens my Christian faith. To tell you pointblank, Islam is not a religion per se. …. And for your compliments and information…. Islam is a dangerous ideology. And for you to ponder…. Shariah Law denigrates women’s rights.

  • Nuntiandi

    I hope other religions use the same lawyers and the same arguments.

  • nice_boy

    Ha ha ha.  Wise din talaga tong mga SC judges.  Inuto lang nila mga petitioners. Wala namang application to show the film in public pero ipinagbawal na nila.   Wala namang epek decision nila.  Nasa YouTube parin ang pelikula at pweding panooring nang lahat na interesado.   Hindi pinagbawalan ang net citizens na panooring ang film.

    • marionics

      uh good point nga naman peru it wreaks havoc on our jurisprudence

      • nice_boy

         As I understand it, it is only the Supreme Court that have the power to legally “wreak havoc” on our jurisprudence. 

  • $19750267

    former Philippine Pres. Fidel Ramos.. banned the showing of the movie ”TEMPTATION OF CHRIST” 

    • marionics

      that did not make it right

      • $19750267

        can I ask… what is “right” or what is “wrong”.. kung ang sinasabi mong tama ay magiging dahilan para magkaroon ng patayan sa pagitan ng dalawang grupo.. specially dito satin sa pinas… makatwiran pa bang ipilit ang sinasabi mong “TAMA”? “respeto lang yan” kung alam momg makakasagasa ka.. masasaktan ang paniniwala ng kapwa mo… at eventually mag-patayan ng dalawang grupo.. makatwiran pa bang masasabi ang sinasabi mong “tama”?

      • marionics

        kung hindi kita respetuhin does it give you the right to gag me?

      • $19750267

        wag kang lumihis sa usapan… ang issue ay tungkol sa “movie”… kung ayaw mong sumabak sa debate.. manahimik ka na lang.

      • marionics

        aaaah ang style mo ng debate e yung pinapatahimik mo ka debate mo hahaha. talagang bagay ka nga sa adbokasiya mo hahaha

      • $19750267

        so ang usapan naman ngayon ay ang “istayl” ko? ganun ba? nakalihis na sa unang “topic”.. eto na lang.. kung ang sinasabi mong TAMA ay ipatutupad at alam mo mismo.. na ito ay pwedeng magesulta ng isang bayolenteng aksyon mula sa kabilang panig… okey lang ba “SAYO” na ituloy?

      • marionics

        ah so kung mag threaten lang pala ako na mangugulo ako e di mapapasara ko na lang maski anong gusto kong sine? ok yun pre. gagawin ko yun. kung gusto kong magpasara ng sine o busalan ang isang nababastusan ako e duduruin ko lang na papatayin ko sila tapos ipapasara na siya ng supreme court. ok yun pre

      • $19750267

        okey.. get ko ang point mo dun… at least balik na tayo sa “kwento”.. pre kung ikaw ang mag-banta sa gobyerno or kanino mang grupo.. sorry to say.. baka dedma lang sila.. Pero iba ang mga kapatid nating “muslim”.. pag sinabi nila talagang red alert ang buong sandatahan… ang nakikita ko lang dito ay ang “realidad”.. anumang ayaw natin.. nakikita, napanood, narinig.. at pati sa kung anuman ang di mo nagustuhan sa mga sinasabi ko dito… karapatan mong mag-react… pero ang karapatan natin ay may kaakibat na “responsibilidad”… kung maraming inosente ang masasaktan or mamamatay ng dahil lang sa sinasabi nating “tama”.. isipin naman natin ang mga magiging biktima.

      • marionics

        the issue is actually subject of disagreement in different jurisdiction. hindi kasi ganun din kadali ang mag balanse ng conflicting rights and interests. on the one hand the freedom of expression which is admittedly the cornerstone and foundation of every democratic society kaya nga in US jurisdiction it is considered to have primacy over almost all other rights. kaya nga walang US court ang mag grant ng tro sa anti muslim film na yan. maski google ayaw tanggalin yan kahit magkagulo na kasi nga considered nila na inviolable ang right to free expression dahil nga sa history ng bansa nila. sa pinas ginaya natin ang basic framework ng govt. ng US. it is only in cases of clear and present danger of national security threat that the US courts will curtail this right. however, this is in cases only where for example there is a risk that state or security secrets might be revealed or in cases of hate speech where the speech incites violence (this one is still controversial) .
        however, ang phl supreme court’s prevailing rulings on free speech is not as strict. because of our history of martial law, our sc has allowed the suppression of free speech almost subjectively by way of the clear and present danger test and balancing of interest test. basically our sc has stated that they will weigh the pros and cons and determine if one right is more important than another and which right they will suppress.

        but personally, would want there to be a less subjective way of determining whether or not a fundamental right should be suppressed or not. hindi yung bast ayaw ko kasi offensive kaya natin susupilin. tapos ayaw ko din naman na dahil lang may kapasidad manggulo ang isang grupo ay kakatigan na ng batas. for me we should ALL be able to exercise a little more tolerance with each others expressions even if they are offensive to us.

        last na ito pare kasi isang linggo na itong balitang ito he he

  • nennen12345

    aleluia, for the sake of peace!

  • virgo57

    due to strong clamor from the Muslim sectors, SC was intimidated and imposed the ban where in fact the said movie can be viewed in the net.Siding the one, the movie must be viewed publicly considering that Philippines is a open society and part of democratic process is freedom of expression and this must be observed. Harassment and intimidation from other groups prove ignorance and myopic stand.The show must go on & let the people decide.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/S5XUATIBTIKC46HFFV7IDJAARY Ed

    Nakakapagtaka rin naman. Wala namang kakwenta kwenta talaga ung video, napakacheap ang pagkakagawa, napakacorny, pero pinatulan pa ng mga kapatid nating muslim. Ang supreme court naman, ang huling sandalan at pinagkakatiwalaan sana natin ng ating kalayaan eh naduwag naman. Bigla akong naawa dun sa mga tunay na bayaning namatay para ipaglaban ang civil liberties natin. Dahil lamang sa isang youtube video lumitaw ang tunay na karakter ng supreme court. Sino ang nagtagumpay? Eh di yung gumawa ng video. Nasunod lahat ang gusto nyang mangyari.

    • marionics

      nagtagumpay kamo yung mga terroristang nanakot sa taumbayan ng biolencia (tama ba spelling? he he) pag di niyo pinigilan ang palabas he he

  • victoria_views

    The petitioners argued that the film, produced by self-described Coptic Christian Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, is an “invasion of constitutional guarantee of free exercise of religion and to practice religion without fear or hatred.”

    So I call on those Muslim terrorists to stop attacking the Catholic churches with explosives.

    Let us all practice our respective religions without fear of being killed or hated by others.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_J7CZYPZWNB37S6GTPBJQF6Y7BM Fight D Bigots

      FYI, the Islamic terrorists comprise a small minority of Muslims. And obviously, these Muslims who went to the Supreme Court to argue their case are not terrorists.

      Let us practice our own religion, at wag pakialaman ang relihiyon ng iba para matahimik ang mundo.

  • joerizal

    First of all, it’s plainly and utterly stupid to publicly screen a pathetically low-quality film that has caused the death of unwilling participants in other countries. Even if the SC didn’t block this, it’s in bad taste to even consider showing it in public. What for? To gain attention? For what for christ’s sake? The morons who cooked up this insanity should be locked up and made to watch that movie in their cells 24 x 7,

    • superpilipinas

      That’s how it is in other “first world” countries.

      • joerizal

        That’s how what is? Try to make sense when you reply.

    • efriend

      Live in another country like Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan to get along with others’ “taste”. They might even hire you as a mutawa.

      • joerizal

        You’re as stupid as a sheep.

  • BatangSingapore

    pinipilit talaga maging relevant ng Supreme Court na kunwari may nagagawa sila hahahahhha.  Sino ba tanga producer na maglalabas ng pelikulang walang ka torya torya.

    style talaga ng abnoy na administrasyon ay BULOK.

    • superpilipinas

      Sa Singapore maraming black pepper crabs.

      He-he-he. Sa Pilipinas maraming talangka (minded) and very good at name calling.

    • NiJuSan

      unfortunately, may naglabas na. nasa article. though hindi nga sya producer..

  • IsipPinoy

    Freedom of expression should not be held hostage by religious fanatics. If you don’t like it, don’t watch it.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_J7CZYPZWNB37S6GTPBJQF6Y7BM Fight D Bigots

      freedom of expression, hahaha. the sole argument of people with simple minds

  • Diepor

    Banana republic .

  • spearheads

    This maybe out of topic but still is a hot issue now as far as the Supreme Court is concerned.

    Deputy Ombudsman Gonzales III is reinstated by the SC. First controversial issue decided by the Supreme Court under Sereno against the administration. Hmnnn, I’m not convinced until the due compensation as suggested by the Aquino-Cojuangco lawyers in the Hacienda Luisita case is finally rejected. It’s funny how Justice Carpio rationalized that they are supporting Sereno which can be gleaned from their decisions. Is Carpio insinuating that it was the idea of Sereno to reinstate Deputy Ombudsman Gonzales III and they are just supporting her? PDI please publish a report on this decision so that people will know how they voted. If you remember, Deputy Ombudsman III received overwhelming flak because of the allegation that he deliberately delayed the hostage taker’s case because of failure to pay the alleged bribe money he demanded.

  • superpilipinas

    I agree with SC’s ruling 100%.

    We are better people. We aim to respect as we want to be respected. We have freedom of expression but we don’t abuse it to disrespect others.

    Most importantly: We must balance our tolerance and sensitivity towards others. We tolerate smaller negative things and sometimes make sacrifices in order to acieve the more significant things that we want. We need to be sensitive to others cultures and religions.

    In some other countries, it has become crazy that they protect freedom of expression for the sake of protecting it. But not for the sake of what it is for, promoting exchange of ideas for peace and happiness of everyone. 

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/JKS7Y3WBUOJPOMTYPCRXSKW7KM Franzeline Perdubal

    Being a Muslim and pikon, is an explosive mix. 

    Why dont you rate the movie as “inappropriate” sa youtube and send your petition doon. Ano magagawa ni Paquito Ochoa or ng MTRCB dyan? 

    The movie was a piece of crap but you cant correct that by burning buildings and killing people.

    ISLAM, supposedly is a religion of Peace, but your followers are preaching hate. Kudos to the few real peaceful Muslims.

    • beerhunters

      Islam is a religion of Pus

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_GVANQHP6VJ2MSGAJB46GUUNISE Jozz

           It is important to point out first, that there is no mention anywhere in the Quran of the actual number of virgins available in paradise, and second, the dark-eyed damsels are available for all believing Muhamadans, not just martyrs.
           It is in the Ahadith that we find the 72 virgins in heaven specified: in a Hadith (Islamic Tradition) collected by Al-Tirmidhi (c. died 892 CE) in the Book of Sunan (volume IV, chapters on The Features of Paradise as described by Muhammad, chapter 21, About the Smallest Reward for the People of Paradise, (Hadith 2687). The same hadith is also quoted by Ibn Kathir (died 1373 CE ) in his Quranic commentary (Tafsir) of Sura Al-Rahman 55:72:-
          “The Prophet Muhammad was heard saying: ‘The smallest reward for the people of paradise is an abode where there are 80,000 servants and 72 wives, over which stands a dome decorated with pearls, aquamarine, and ruby, as wide as the distance from Al-Jabiyyah [a Damascus suburb] to Sana’a [Yemen]’.”
          The sensual pleasures are graphically described in detail by Imam Al-Suyuti (died 1505 ), Quranic commentator and polymath. He wrote:
          “Each time we sleep with a houri we find her virgin. Besides, the penis of the Elected never softens. The erection is eternal; the sensation that you feel each time you make love is utterly delicious and out of this world and were you to experience it in this world you would faint. Each chosen one [ie Muslim] will marry seventy [sic] houris, besides the women he married on earth, and all will have appetising vaginas.”

  • inquirercet

    “i may not agree with what you say (it may even disgust me) but i will fight to the death for your right to say it.”

    by playing safe, the sc again missed an opportunity to strengthen our democracy.

    • NiJuSan

      well.. what should the SC do then in this case..

      • inquirercet

        nothing.

      • NiJuSan

        well.. that is always an option… but.. you could also do something. 

        and i don’t get your point that the SC decision actually suppressed democracy. you can still watch it. not publicly though.

      • inquirercet

        doing something in this case is choosing sides between one belief over another. the state has no business in those matters. what makes it even more petty is the fact that it is just a movie. what if the sc decided to ban the showing of the twilight saga because it offends vampires.

  • Banono

     Thanks for sharing that friend, in fact I’m trying to look for it from the records just to show to those who doubt (and even accuses people like me who informs them about what Islam is all about) that those attributes used to describe Muhammad (not just in the film) were just invented by other people (in this case the Muslims favourite suspects – Jews and Christians). If they would only do some research of the Quran, especially the different Hadiths, there they will find a complete picture of who Muhammad is, his life, ways and exploits.

    On the other hand, Muslim scholars and apologists can deny just about anything you may throw at them, anytime they are cornered by invoking that such and such are already superseded by such and such. That’s how slippery they can be.

  • indiosbravos2002

    This only strengthen my belief that Muslims are troublemakers and war mongerers. I understand their anger about the film but to kill people and claim its their gods will. Come on! Why cant they do the rght thing and sue the filmamakers. If they did much earlier probably google might have been forced to take it down already.

    In truth, I think the extremist are just using the film as a reason to go mental and call jihad. Probably its better that the civilize world turn a blind eye towards the muslim countries and have those dictators rule them forever.

    • benjamin ben

      I don’t agree but that’s your opinion. I believe that the main problem here is the one who made the film that misrepresent and destroy the religion. No one should be allowed to abuse anyone

  • inquirercet

    all religion by nature is in competition with other religions. like jollibee is in competition with mcdonald’s. what if the sc decided to ban a jollibee ad for insulting mcdonald’s? bottom line is profit and the proliferation of their respective products. in the religion’s case – different versions of heaven. 

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_J7CZYPZWNB37S6GTPBJQF6Y7BM Fight D Bigots

      The analogy is great except that it sounds like you are comparing wildlife conservation with RH bill

      • inquirercet

        if you fail to see the relevance of the analogy then i can say no more. good day to you sir.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_J7CZYPZWNB37S6GTPBJQF6Y7BM Fight D Bigots

        good day to you too as you failed to get my point either.

  • indiosbravos2002

    Its low budget, boring story, no name actors, produced by hard core christians. The real question is Who will want that shown? May manonood ba?

  • Garote

    It’s not true that the low-budget movie caused the death of the US ambassador to Libya. It’s the Al Qaeda mercenaries in Libya, put there and financed by Nato and the US gov’t. This Al Qaeda group are said to be responsible for the murder of the US ambassador, and the anti-Islam film has nothing to do with it. The anti-Islam film came out to “hype” the Muslims to anger and for them to ask from UN to curtail freedom of expression. This anti-Islam film has been traced back to the persons identified to the US gov’t under Obama..

  • IsipPinoy

    SC should re-read our constitution.

  • jr7016

    the film was not the reason that the US Ambassador to Libya was assassinated.  The attacked on the US Embassy in Libya was pre planned for the Sept 11.  The writer should take note of this fact

    • benjamin ben

      This film was the primary reason of that violence and killings based on the CNN report I’ve watched.

      • jr7016

        no Benjamin..it is not.  I live in US so my source is not just CNN news.  Search more my friend

      • benjamin ben

        Right after that Libya attact Sec. Hillary Clinton made a statement condemning that film in the CNN. Forbes as well interviewed some of those who casted that film who felt so guilty of being part of it.

      • jr7016

        you know Benjamin, the administration have reversed their stand. Each day, it is a news here in USA. The current administration have been getting the criticism because they don’t want to tell the American people what was the real cause of the attack thus they reversed their stand. The congressional committee on security have received different feeds that it was a pre-planned and even the Libyan government says so. It is election time now here, so the Obama administration doesn’t even want to say it is a terrorist attack because it will hurt them. and just this morning, the US Congress have sent a letter to the administration why they didn’t tell that the assault on the US Embassy in Libya was a terrorist attack contrary to the report they received that day

  • Lopez_Chaena

    This video could just have been a forgotten video, like other videos created in the millions every year. But since the Muslims reacted to this video violently, this video gained instant popularity. What makes this popular is not the video itself but how the Muslims reacted to it. Had the Muslims ignored this video it could have been forgotten and lost forever.

    Banning this video in the Philippines would arouse the curiosity of Filipinos and would trigger millions of hits in YouTube by Filipinos.

    • benjamin ben

      Struggle to stop it should be respected and admired too as it shows how they love thier Religion. This film was obviously made by the one who wanted to destroy this religion and even those who casted the film didn’t actually get what the film is all about. I mean we can’t just allow those who have money to destroy who they hated

    • Apuh_Ilidjih

      Maybe you are right but unfortunately Muslims has their own way in depending their Religion specially when somebody mock the greatest man in human history.If muslims did’nt react on this film its just simply mean that they agree on what this Film’s message.We are reacting it’s because that the film’s message and try to share to the whole world is not true.

  • John_Galt_II

    Anong klaseng Supreme Court yan? Freedom of expression is absolute! You may not like the film and its message but you should have let the people decide for themselves about the absurdity or crassness of the film. This is a case of dumb and dumber.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_J7CZYPZWNB37S6GTPBJQF6Y7BM Fight D Bigots

      Freedom of expression is absolute? The answer is no as there are constitutional limits to it

    • frudo

      anong silbi ng freedom of expression kung may magbubuwis naman buhay ng tao, wag na ipalabas yan para maiwasan ang gulo, diba nga dapat irespeto ang kani kaniyang paniniwala para maiwasan ang gulo or away.

    • benjamin ben

      If freedom of expression is absolute then anyone can make a false film to destroy who they hated.That’s no room in our individual rights

      • John_Galt_II

        And you think the people are gullible to believe anything. Making false claims against someone is not an expression. An expression is the act of making yourself be heard. Even if you make make yourself the most abominable creature on earth you still have the right to express yourself. How many times have you seen INC and the Catholic debate and try to prove that the other is wrong. Isn’t that an expression? This is the same thing, these people that made the film are trying to say that the muslims are absurd and that mohammad is a false prophet. Whether its true or not is another thing. What is important is that anybody is free to refute these claims through a reasonable discourse.

      • riotcore

        While I do not disagree with you, it is sad to note that even in this world with an amazing wealth of knowledge at your fingertips, people ARE gullible enough to believe anything (and this goes for both sides of the story). Sadly, there will never be a middle ground for the two opposing sides of stupid. 

      • benjamin ben

        This is a blog site I believe and anyone can make thier point either logical or not. Just make your point sir. At least we are arguing about freedom of expression

  • chitetskoy

    security reasons, lam niyo na baka mapasabog tayo ng mga Islamista.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_J7CZYPZWNB37S6GTPBJQF6Y7BM Fight D Bigots

    The ruling is simple: Your FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION is not a license to trample on our compatriot Muslims RIGHT TO THEIR RELIGION.

    Attacking other people because of their faith, or assaulting in a rude and malicious manner the very core of their belief, is not freedom of expression. It is abuse of freedom, and a plain and simple case of religious bigotry.

    • alexfrommactan

      And how exactly the film trample the Muslim’s right to religion?

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_J7CZYPZWNB37S6GTPBJQF6Y7BM Fight D Bigots

        Because there is such a thing called religious tolerance. The operative word in this concept is RESPECT. You are not asked to believe in anyone’s religious belief but you are asked to RESPECT THEM.

        And FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION is not a weapon created by constitutionalists to wantonly attack others because they have a religion different from yours.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/EXMC2GUYAW2YDGLIUUY3Q7DKYA Jeremy Davis

        I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I hate it when people dismiss him as a work of fiction and parody His existence. Is my religious freedom and right to have my religion respected being taken away from me?

      • alexfrommactan

        Is believing otherwise disrepecting others? If you want respect why cant you respect the belief of others too? Is it not hypocricy? Why would you ban the video just because it violates your view? Is it not you who is trying to violate his right?

        If there are people who believe Hitler is a saint and Mohammed is a joke,would you banned them?.  And how the video attacked others? It attacks the beliefs of others but not the right of others. You need to see the difference. The only limit to one’s right is the right of others to excercise their own right.

        Following your logic, we should have banned Da Vinci Code, Agora, and even teaching biology and evolution in school as those contradicts other peoples religious beliefs. I am thankful, Galilieo, or Charles Darwin or Stephen Hawkings were not Filipinos, otherwise their thoughts would have not flourished.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ED6A2XHBBMQQYM4MFSZ7BMIB4M batang-gas

    Kung ano man naging decision ng SC, kudos to the filipino muslim leaders for choosing the rule of law in dealing with this problem of blasphemy on their belief.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_J7CZYPZWNB37S6GTPBJQF6Y7BM Fight D Bigots

    What most people commenting here fail to see actually is the fact that this case is a clear proof we have a functioning democracy. 

    Also, and most importantly for me, this shows the chaging paradigm of Filipino Muslims, who unlike other Muslims across the globe chose the legal path–not the road to violence–to fight for their religious rights.

  • TinimbangNgunitKulang

    There’s no need for a ban. Sino namang Pinoy ang manonood niyan? Hindi trip ng Pinoy ang ganyang klaseng pelikula.

  • alexfrommactan

    While the film is offensive, it is very difficult to see how the film infringes on religious rights. The film did not prohibit anyone from practicing their religion.

    I just watch the President of the United States in UN assembly who said “that freedom of speech means he can condemn, but not ban, the video”. “As president of our country, and commander-in-chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day”. “And I will always defend their right to do so.”

    Well, we are not in America. It is Philippines, where the actions of our institutions,more often than not, are based  on who has the loudest voice,  not on core values.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_J7CZYPZWNB37S6GTPBJQF6Y7BM Fight D Bigots

      Attacking the gays will not prevent them from being gays either. And so the anti-gays’ rights to express their sexual/gender opinions and treat gays like trash must be upheld too as part of society’s freedom?

      • alexfrommactan

        It might be good for you to site example of attacking”. Because there is big gap in attacking” and freedom of exxression. Freedom of expression does not constitue violating any law, if that is not obvious.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_J7CZYPZWNB37S6GTPBJQF6Y7BM Fight D Bigots

        When freedom oversteps its boundary, then there is violation of law. No freedom is absolute as freedom is not a hypothetical matter in a world of make believe. It is a constitutional issue.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_J7CZYPZWNB37S6GTPBJQF6Y7BM Fight D Bigots

        At the same time, what you fail to see is the huge difference between the two democracies–US and Philippines. 

        In America, a Christian fundamentalist can threaten to burn the Koran all in the name of freedom of expression and not worry about a bomb tearing through a full-packed passenger bus elsewhere, killing scores of innocent civilians.

      • alexfrommactan

        What you said has no basis. If there is a country to ban it based on threat, it should be US. They already spent 4 american lives including ambassador! Many countries are ganging up against them!

        America is not banning it because there actions are based on fundamental rights, not  based on populist sentiments as in the Phil.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_J7CZYPZWNB37S6GTPBJQF6Y7BM Fight D Bigots

        And how many lives we’ve lost to Islamic extremism? Never forget the Rizal Day bombing, the Mindanao blasts, the Superferry attacks…. to name a few.

      • alexfrommactan

        Are we still talking about the video here? It looks like you’ve wandered too far. We are talking about the video.

        If you want to wander too far, remember 9/11 in US.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_J7CZYPZWNB37S6GTPBJQF6Y7BM Fight D Bigots

        huh? and so you treat events as distinct and unrelated phenomena?

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_J7CZYPZWNB37S6GTPBJQF6Y7BM Fight D Bigots

        please do not forget too that this is just a TRO or a temporary restraining order, not a permanent ban. It is issued while the case is being heard.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_J7CZYPZWNB37S6GTPBJQF6Y7BM Fight D Bigots

        Again, the case is still being heard. So to accuse the Philippines of judicial childishness vis-a-vis the US is uncalled for.

        And that does not include the fact that the Philippine Supreme Court could only rule based on the Philippine Constitution, not on the US Charter.

      • alexfrommactan

        You are inveting words again like judicial childelssness. Well, it looks like you just want to surrender your right  to avoid violence.

        If we all have that thinking, we should just give Jolo to Abu sayaff!

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_J7CZYPZWNB37S6GTPBJQF6Y7BM Fight D Bigots

        surrender isdifferentformfightingagainstabuseof freedom

      • alexfrommactan

        Are trying to say that the we should ban it because it can a bomb threat? Id that what you are trying to do? To surrender the fundamental right to those who are willing to do violence? 

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_J7CZYPZWNB37S6GTPBJQF6Y7BM Fight D Bigots

        is that the only thing i said?

      • alexfrommactan

        What you said is obvious. It might be good for you to explain how making the video violates the rights of others, particularly right to religion.

        It is insuting video, yes! But it is no way phohibits anyone from believing what they want to believe.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_J7CZYPZWNB37S6GTPBJQF6Y7BM Fight D Bigots

        and so the gay argument is right?

      • alexfrommactan

        What is right about your gay argument? We are talking about freedom of expression, and you mentioned about attacking gays. I asked you to define attacking, or examples of attacking gays and how is that similar to the freedom of expression.  But your response are obvious things that freedom has boundaries.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_J7CZYPZWNB37S6GTPBJQF6Y7BM Fight D Bigots

        and so gender-based bigotry is a no-no. but religious bigotry is just all right for you, it is part of freedom of expression

      • alexfrommactan

        Where in my comments I said gender based or religious bigotry is allowed? And Please define what is the bigotry you are talking about, provide example?

        My argument was while the video is offensive, it does not in anyway infrineges on relgious rights as stated by SC or this article. You are not forced to believe what is in there! You are not coerced to watch the video! 

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_J7CZYPZWNB37S6GTPBJQF6Y7BM Fight D Bigots

        okay, blindly follow your own beliefs. 

      • alexfrommactan

        My parting words for you regarding belief and freedom of expression.

        Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit.- Gandhi

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_J7CZYPZWNB37S6GTPBJQF6Y7BM Fight D Bigots

        i agree. that’s why i adhere to the UN Declaration on Religious Tolerance

      • alexfrommactan

        That statement of Gandhi does not only apply to religious belief.

        Think about it and learn it again.

      • benjamin ben

        making movies to destroy anyone is so easy to do for those who can fund for it and if you give a room for that then that’s all up to you. Freedom of speech is not a key to destroy anyone and that’s how I define it.

    • benjamin ben

      The best value I’ve learned is Respect. Similar to the situation that if anyone will make a bias, malicious and false movie against my mother because they hate and want to destroy her I will do everything I can to stop it. I admire the action made to seek intervention from SC to ban this film than making a violent actions

      • alexfrommactan

        If you demand respect to your belief, you should also respect those who has different belief. Why would you ban a video just because it is different from your view? Is it not hypocricy? Is it not you who is trying to limit the rights of others?

        If there are people who for them Hitler is saint and Jesus are Mohammed are not, let them be as long as they dont violate the rights of others or force you believe their belief. The video attacts the beliefs of others but not the rights of others. You need to know the difference.

        We should have banned the movie Da Vinci Code,Agora, the reader or even teaching evolution in school because those are not in accordance to some people’s belief!

        Imagined if we have banned lectures of Galileo, or Darwin, or Stephen Hawkings or because it just because contradicts religios belief.

      • benjamin ben

        I understand your point but you missed to realize that this film is a very transparent example that anyone who can afford to fund a film-making similar to this who directly misrepresent Muhammad’s personality and other false presentation can anytime repeat this example. This film was secretly made that even the people who casted it don’t have a clue about the whole story of the film (forbes news). Da Vinci is a huge film and made by a huge film maker based on the book of the very popular Dan Brown.This movie doesn’t insult any character of the story but based on history collections not this unknown film. As I said in my previous reply and to say it again that no one is free to abuse anyone’s rights including the rights to protect what you or they believed.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_J7CZYPZWNB37S6GTPBJQF6Y7BM Fight D Bigots

    @ alexfrommactan Can you still read my last comment? haha. 

    Anyway I know what you’re trying to drive at in our argument. But my only point here is some people tend to abuse freedom, because sometimes they are unaware of its limits as well as the emerging constructs on diversity and religious respect.

    For me, the key to achieving harmony is not through the exercise of absolute freedom. Religious tolerance is an important concept in today’s world where varied cultures and beliefs interact in a space where people have less control with–the cyberspace.

    We need to exercise freedom with caution, and with great respect for other peoples’ rights and freedoms.

    I’m an atheist by the way but I admire people who need not malign other people’s faiths to prove his is the correct religion. And it is disgusting all the more if it’s simply meant to irresponsibly express freedom of expression.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_J7CZYPZWNB37S6GTPBJQF6Y7BM Fight D Bigots

      good night alexfrommactan 

  • benjamin ben

    I think Freedom of speech should not be used as an excuse to destroy our individual rights, family rights, community rights, etc. including religious rights. These people who can fund a film to destroy anyone against them should not be given a chance to abuse us all.

  • Hey_Dudes

    The danger of S.C.’s incursion into one of our most cherished freedoms in a democratic state is the precedent it’s decision might have established.  What is the stop this faith (Muslim) or others from running to the same recourse at the slightest perception they are being insulted, maligned or singled out.  The next entity who will ask for a similar decision and not getting it will surely cry discrimination – what then?

  • Kirigaya_Kazuto

    If you don’t want people to criticize and ridicule your beliefs, then don’t such have ridiculous beliefs. Especially beliefs that compel you to kill people who disagree with you.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/YOQGNNPLWH3PHXCDXMGN57GDNM Jhon

      All religious beliefs are ridiculous to those who are not practicing it.

      • Braax82

         sa akin john kahit anong relihyon ok  basta wag lang papatay ng tao, dahil hindi nyo kasama sa ganuung pananampalataya at di kayo magkasundo sa paniniwala

    • Braax82

       sa akin kahit anong rehiyon ok lang ,pero yung relhyon na papatayin ang kapwa tao dahil hindi kaanib sa kanila o di umaayon sa paniniwala nila ,itoy paniniwala ng demonyo.makasariling paniniwala .

  • CtrlSelfDelete

    They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. 

    -Benjamin Franklin

    • beerhunters

      well qouted.:if you are not ready to pay the price then you don’t deserve it!

  • SUMMER_OF_71

    The heading and opening para. of the report are totally misleading, as if the SC has already ruled on the merits of the case and that the film “infringes on religious rights” (obviously, the position instead of the petitioners).  The fact is that only a TRO has been issued and the respondents have yet to give their comments.  PDI’s guys should be taught a thing or two about reporting on such matters, and it would serve PDI well to issue a clarification. 

    • beerhunters

      exactly, seminar on basic legal issues and not on envelopmental journalism!

  • seaglass2401belle

    A BLOG POST BY EX -PRIME MINISTER-QUOTE-
    1. Hillary Clinton says the film insulting to Muslims cannot be stopped because of freedom of expression.
    2. The French and Italian papers published photos of a naked Duchess of Cambridge. Now a French court has ordered the publishers to surrender all the pictures to the royal couple and to stop publishing them. The Italians are also going to do the same.
    3. So freedom of expression is selective, not to be used against a countess but okay for the prophet of the Muslims.
    4. I know there are many hypocrites in the West but this is the mother of all Western hypocrisy.
    -UNQUOTE

    • beerhunters

      in the case of the duchess it was an invasion of privacy! you are comparing santol from durian!! he he he

    • Diepor

      The duchess is a real person , not fiction.

  • benjamin ben

    This SC decision implies how they care about the rights of those people who cares so much about their religion. There will be no room for those who abuses the power of freedom of expression or else everyone who can afford to make a film to attact or destroy thier enemy will do the same.

    • ano ikaw

       So you are implying that Christians don’t care about their religion? There were so many compromising movies made about Jesus. But did the Christian turn violent and threaten to behead the infidels?

      Did they use their children to carry banners that state ” behead those who insult our prophet”? Did they use their children to call Jihad in a conference?

      You must be kidding. You are a muslim so you should know.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/XWH5SD6XPM3XKND6PJQQ32ZRAU Mabuhay

    Maarte masyado ang mga muslim na ito..kala mo kung sinong relihiyoso e wala namang inatupag kundi mangidnap at mamugot ng ulo pwe…c mohammed tulad din ninyo yan…abnormal…utak pulbura pwe….kung talagang matitino kayo ang pugutan ninyo ng ulo ay ang  kapwa nyo muslim na mga rebelde..utang ng ina nyo! ang totoo si Lucifer talaga nag Diyos ninyo!…..utang ng ina nyo uli!

  • Braax82

    sa susunod di na mapipigilan yang mga sira ulong yan na magdasal kahit sa gitna ng kalye paginabot ng oras ng pagdadasal kuno nila. sasabihin freedom of religion kuno, kaya lumalaki ang ulo ng mga sira ulong ito dahil pinagbibigyan ang mga kaekekan eh.mga abusador tong mga ito.pagtagal baka pati yung krus na nakalagay sa cebu ipapatangal na ng mga ito. mga loko loko ginagamit nyo lang ang relehiyon para sa sarili nyong kapritso.
     

  • jr7016

    read the current news that this film was not the cause on the attack on the US Embassy in Libya. it is misleading if we insist it was the reason.

  • Diepor

    You just don’t understand the importance of freedom of speech .

  • benjamin ben

    I have seen the film and it’s a comedy.The scripts were like done by a drunk haters of our brother Muslims. It’s like you’re having a dinner in a restaurant and all of a sudden somebody spits to your food. Apparent disrespect of the religion and misrepresentation of the most respected person in Islam. I did agree that our SC has banned that film. Anyone can make the same film against their enemy. Subject to be addressed to protect us from this kind of attack.

  • ano ikaw

    Infringing Religious Rights say you SC? Hello?

    How about freedom of expression and freedom of information? We do have the right to view this movie as we see fit. You SC got it so wrong.

    You should have instead regulated /classified it, instead of totally banning it.

    It would be different if a movie was made about Jesus in the same context,sure you’d allow it.

    SC you are a JOKE!

  • ano ikaw

    To Benjamin Akbakar.

    So you are implying that Christians don’t care about their religion? There were so many compromising movies made about Jesus. But did the Christian turn violent and threaten to behead the infidels?

    Did
    they use their children to carry banners that state ” behead those who
    insult our prophet”? Did they use their children to call Jihad in a
    conference?

    You must be kidding. You are a muslim so you should know.

  • benjamin ben

    Our town has a small Muslim community who are so hard working and so friendly. We never have problem with them. I’ve learned how beautiful Islam and that even means peace. The only problem they got is once a single Muslim made a mistake people generalize them. Also, very unfortunate that many terrorists are in muslim religion but the reality is real muslims or majority of them condemn any terrorists act. If you are here in the UAE (a muslim country) you’ll see how wonderful they are. They don’t hate other religion. Everybody’s welcome here. You can even find huge Christian Churches in every cities. I mean let’s think wider and try to live with peace and respect without religious discrimination etc.

  • Russell Ariola

    Meron naman sa metacafe video. Libre pa.

To subscribe to the Philippine Daily Inquirer newspaper in the Philippines, call +63 2 896-6000 for Metro Manila and Metro Cebu or email your subscription request here.

Factual errors? Contact the Philippine Daily Inquirer's day desk. Believe this article violates journalistic ethics? Contact the Inquirer's Reader's Advocate. Or write The Readers' Advocate:

c/o Philippine Daily Inquirer Chino Roces Avenue corner Yague and Mascardo Streets, Makati City,Metro Manila, Philippines Or fax nos. +63 2 8974793 to 94

editors' picks

advertisement

popular

advertisement

videos