Last week, the Movies and Television Ratings and Classification Board (MTRCB) rated all the short films about human rights violations submitted to it for classification as rated X. The X rating means that these same short films can not be shown publicly. The reason for the classification was that the short films were supposed to be one-sided and tended to undermine confidence in the present administration.
First, on the issue of one-sidedness: The MTRCB was never tasked to classify films based on whether or not they have balanced coverage of the views. Short films and documentaries, by their very nature, are one sided because they seek to advocate a specific point of view. This is at the very core of free speech—advocacy. Those with opposing views would be equally free to voice their dissent. If the MTRCB were to use the same standard on public service advertisement, then all of those would have to be given X ratings as well. It would be absurd for the MTRCB to impose a condition of being balanced on a public service advertisement about, say, the health risk and the hidden cost of cigarette smoking. The message that cigarette smoking is dangerous to one’s health would be diluted to the point of inefficacy if, in the interest of being balanced, it would also mention the opposing view that cigarettes also provide an obscene amount of tax revenues for the government.
On the issue of undermining confidence in the present administration: The Philippine Constitution guarantees free speech. As with other rights, free speech is not absolute. Prior restraint can only be imposed on free speech if it poses a clear and present danger to national security. Tendency to undermine confidence in an administration that certainly deserves to be scrutinized at the very least is not a valid justification for prior restraint.
The very essence of free speech is to encourage debate and discussion on the issues confronting our society. The issue may be as mundane as who deserves to win the latest configuration of Pinoy Big Brother to the substantial ones such as whether the current administration is doing right by the people. Censorship—which is exactly what the MTRCB is doing—has no place in a democracy. The debate and free exchange of ideas make all of us better citizens.
What is really insulting is that the MTRCB thinks that it knows better than we do on what we should and should not watch or hear. Even if the short films were one-sided and put the current administration in a bad light, we are intelligent enough to accept or reject what messages those films want to convey.
It’s not as if the MTRCB is a paragon of intellect. Remember that Rosanna Roces film “Patikim ng Pinya?” The MTRCB was probably the last one to notice, if at all, the sexual double entendre in the title. For several years, the sitcom “Cool Ka Lang,” which was set supposedly in an automobile repair shop run by a Mang Mags (alluding to magnesium wheels) and Jack (also quite appropriate for someone working in a repair shop) ran for several years with nary a peep from the MTRCB. The funny thing was that the choice of setting was just to give the names Mags and Jack a veneer of decency. The auto repair shop itself became just a peripheral aspect of the sitcom. Okay. There’s Mags. Then there’s Jack. And the sitcom’s title was “Cool Ka Lang.” Put it all together and what do you have? “MagJackCoolKaLang.” In street lingo it loosely translates to “Just Masturbate.” The sitcom ran for several years without the MTRCB being the wiser!
I am always in favor of free speech even if it means that I have to endure countless hours of silly, inane, and just plain inconsequential views of other people. (For some reason, Heart Evangelista, Melanie Marquez, and Karen Davila just came to mind.) However, if I somehow woke up in an authoritarian state, I would hope that the censor would have better sense than the people we have in the MTRCB.
First, on the issue of one-sidedness: The MTRCB was never tasked to classify films based on whether or not they have balanced coverage of the views. Short films and documentaries, by their very nature, are one sided because they seek to advocate a specific point of view. This is at the very core of free speech—advocacy. Those with opposing views would be equally free to voice their dissent. If the MTRCB were to use the same standard on public service advertisement, then all of those would have to be given X ratings as well. It would be absurd for the MTRCB to impose a condition of being balanced on a public service advertisement about, say, the health risk and the hidden cost of cigarette smoking. The message that cigarette smoking is dangerous to one’s health would be diluted to the point of inefficacy if, in the interest of being balanced, it would also mention the opposing view that cigarettes also provide an obscene amount of tax revenues for the government.
On the issue of undermining confidence in the present administration: The Philippine Constitution guarantees free speech. As with other rights, free speech is not absolute. Prior restraint can only be imposed on free speech if it poses a clear and present danger to national security. Tendency to undermine confidence in an administration that certainly deserves to be scrutinized at the very least is not a valid justification for prior restraint.
The very essence of free speech is to encourage debate and discussion on the issues confronting our society. The issue may be as mundane as who deserves to win the latest configuration of Pinoy Big Brother to the substantial ones such as whether the current administration is doing right by the people. Censorship—which is exactly what the MTRCB is doing—has no place in a democracy. The debate and free exchange of ideas make all of us better citizens.
What is really insulting is that the MTRCB thinks that it knows better than we do on what we should and should not watch or hear. Even if the short films were one-sided and put the current administration in a bad light, we are intelligent enough to accept or reject what messages those films want to convey.
It’s not as if the MTRCB is a paragon of intellect. Remember that Rosanna Roces film “Patikim ng Pinya?” The MTRCB was probably the last one to notice, if at all, the sexual double entendre in the title. For several years, the sitcom “Cool Ka Lang,” which was set supposedly in an automobile repair shop run by a Mang Mags (alluding to magnesium wheels) and Jack (also quite appropriate for someone working in a repair shop) ran for several years with nary a peep from the MTRCB. The funny thing was that the choice of setting was just to give the names Mags and Jack a veneer of decency. The auto repair shop itself became just a peripheral aspect of the sitcom. Okay. There’s Mags. Then there’s Jack. And the sitcom’s title was “Cool Ka Lang.” Put it all together and what do you have? “MagJackCoolKaLang.” In street lingo it loosely translates to “Just Masturbate.” The sitcom ran for several years without the MTRCB being the wiser!
I am always in favor of free speech even if it means that I have to endure countless hours of silly, inane, and just plain inconsequential views of other people. (For some reason, Heart Evangelista, Melanie Marquez, and Karen Davila just came to mind.) However, if I somehow woke up in an authoritarian state, I would hope that the censor would have better sense than the people we have in the MTRCB.