Cohen vs California
352
Facts:
A 19-year-old department store worker expressed
his opposition to the Vietnam War by wearing a
jacket emblazoned with "FUCK THE DRAFT. STOP
THE WAR" The young man, Paul Cohen, was
charged under a California statute that prohibits
"maliciously and willfully disturb[ing] the peace and
quiet of any neighborhood or person [by] offensive
conduct." Cohen was found guilty and sentenced to
30 days in jail.
Issue:
Did California's statute, prohibiting the display of
offensive messages such as "Fuck the Draft,"
violate freedom of expression as protected by the
First Amendment?
Ruling:
Yes. Defendant’s speech is protected by the First
Amendment of the United States Constitution
(Constitution). The only conviction that the state
sought to punish was communication. Thus, this
case rests solely upon “speech.”� The state lacks
power to punish Defendant for the content of his
message because he showed no intent to incite
disobedience to the draft. Thus, his conviction rests
upon his exercise of the “freedom of speech”�
and can only be justified as a valid regulation of the
manner in which he exercised that freedom. This is
not an obscenity case because his message is not
erotic. This case does not involve “fighting
words”� because his message is not directed at
another person. Further, the public is free to avert
their eyes from the distasteful message. His
message constitutes emotive speech because it
seeks to get our attention. This speech is protected
by the First Amendment of the Constitution.
Therefore, his conviction must be overturned.
People vs. Kottinger45 Phil.
FACTS:Accused Kottinger's camera business store
was raided. Among the materials confiscated were
some pictures that show Filipino inhabitants in
their native dress. Using these items, he was
charged of violating section 12 of Act No.277, the
Philippine Libel Law. His pictures were being used
as post cards of the non-Christian natives of the
country.
HELD:(Malcolm, J.) Although Philippine laws do not
define what obscenity means, the Court defined
obscene or obscenity as "something offensive to
chastity, decency, or delicacy." There are two tests
whether something is obscene: (1) whether it
corrupts the mind of the viewers to such immoral
influences, or (2) it shocks the ordinary and
common sense of men as an indecency. In the case
at bar, the pictures merely portrayed the
inhabitants in their native dress as testified by a UP
Professor. Moreover, there are pictures of similar
nature which are imported and circulated in the
Philippines, such as a book about the Ifugaos. As
such, the pictures were not obscene within the
meaning of the law.
Gonzales vs Kalaw
Facts:
Antonio Gonzales, president of Malaya Films,
claimed that his film Kapit sa Patalim, was rated for
adults only by a subcommittee of the movie review
board together with the required cuts and scene
deletions. He justified that these requirements
were without basis and were restrains on artistic
expression. He adduced that the film is an integral
whole and all its portions, including those to which
the Board now offers belated objection, are
essential for the integrity of the film. Viewed as a
whole, there is no basis even for the vague
speculations advanced by the Board as basis for its
classification.
He appealed to the movie review board but the
same affirmed the decion of the sub committee.
When Gonzales appealed to the supreme court,
the board claimed that the deletions were
removed and the requirement to submit the
master negative was taken out but the film was still
rated for adults only. The petition was amended to
contest the rating only.
Issue:
Whether petitioner’s right to freedom of
expression was violated
Ruling:
The court ruled that movies are within the
constitutional protection of freedom of expression,
so that censorship is presumed to be valid as
constituting prior restraint. 
But a different standard must be followed in
television because of the pervasive and intrusive
influence of the medium on people who watch its
programs without having to pay anything.
All that remains to be said is that the ruling is to be
limited to the concept of obscenity applicable to
motion pictures. It is the consensus of this Court
that where television is concerned: a less liberal
approach calls for observance. This is so because
unlike motion pictures where the patrons have to
pay their way, television reaches every home
where there is a set. Children then will likely will be
among the avid viewers of the programs therein
shown. As was observed by Circuit Court of Appeals
Judge Jerome Frank, it is hardly the concern of the
law to deal with the sexual fantasies of the adult
population. 34 it cannot be denied though that the
State as parens patriae is called upon to manifest
an attitude of caring for the welfare of the young.
Cantwell vs Connecticut
Facts:
Newton Cantwell and his sons, Jehovah's
Witnesses, were proselytizing a predominantly
Catholic neighborhood in Connecticut. They were
travelling door-to-door and approaching people on
the street. Two pedestrians reacted angrily to an
anti-Catholic message. Cantwell and his sons were
arrested and charged with: (1) violation of a
Connecticut statute requiring solicitors to obtain a
certificate before soliciting funds from the public,
and (2) inciting a common-law breach of the peace.
Issue:
Did the Cantwells’ convictions violate the First
Amendment?
Ruling:
Yes. In a unanimous decision, the Court held the
Cantwells’ actions were protected by the First and
Fourteenth Amendments. Writing for the Court,
Justice Owen Roberts reasoned that while general
regulations on solicitation were legitimate,
restrictions based on religious grounds were not.
Because the statute allowed local officials to
determine which causes were religious and which
ones were not, it violated the First and Fourteenth
Amendments. The Court also held that while the
maintenance of public order was a valid state
interest, it could not be used to justify the
suppression of "free communication of views." The
Cantwells' message, while offensive to many, did
not threaten "bodily harm" and was protected
religious speech.
Gerona, et. al v SEC. OF EDUCATION
Facts:
1. Petitioners belong to the Jehova’s Witness
whose children were expelled from their schools
when they refused to salute, sing the anthem,
recite the pledge during the conduct of flag
ceremony. DO No. 8 issued by DECS pursuant to RA
1265 which called for the manner of conduct
during a flag ceremony. The petitioners wrote the
Secretary of Education on their plight and
requested to reinstate their children. This was
denied.
2. As a result, the petitioners filed for a writ of
preliminary injunction against the Secretary and
Director of Public Schools to restrain them from
implementing said DO No. 8.
3. The lower court (RTC) declared DO 8 invalid and
contrary to the Bill of Rights.
Issue:
Whether or not DO 8 is valid or constitutional
Ruling:
DO 8 is valid. Saluting the flag is not a religious
ritual and it is for the courts to determine, not a
religious group, whether or not a certain practice is
one.
1. The court held that the flag is not an image but a
symbol of the Republic of the Philippines, an
emblem of national sovereignty, of national unity
and cohesion and of freedom and liberty which it
and the Constitution guarantee and protect.
Considering the complete separation of church and
state in our system of government, the flag is
utterly devoid of any religious significance. Saluting
the flag consequently does not involve any
religious ceremony.
After all, the determination of whether a certain
ritual is or is not a religious ceremony must rest
with the courts. It cannot be left to a religious
group or sect, much less to a follower of said group
or sect; otherwise, there would be confusion and
misunderstanding for there might be as many
interpretations and meanings to be given to a
certain ritual or ceremony as there are religious
groups or sects or followers.
Secretary of Education was duly authorized to
promulgate Department Order No. 8, series of
1955; that the requirement of observance of the
flag ceremony or salute provided for in said
Department Order No. 8, does not violate the
Constitutional provision about freedom of religion
and exercise of religion; that compliance with the
non-discriminatory and reasonable rules and
regulations and school discipline, including
observance of the flag ceremony is a prerequisite
to attendance in public schools; and that for failure
and refusal to participate in the flag ceremony,
petitioners were properly excluded and dismissed
from the public school they were attending.

2. The freedom of religious belief guaranteed by

the Constitution does not and cannot mean
exemption form or non-compliance with
reasonable and non-discriminatory laws, rules and
regulations promulgated by competent authority.
In enforcing the flag salute on the petitioners,
there was absolutely no compulsion involved, and
for their failure or refusal to obey school
regulations about the flag salute they were not
being persecuted. Neither were they being
criminally prosecuted under threat of penal
sacntion. If they chose not to obey the flag salute
regulation, they merely lost the benefits of public
education being maintained at the expense of their
fellow citizens, nothing more. According to a
popular expression, they could take it or leave it.
Having elected not to comply with the regulations
about the flag salute, they forfeited their right to
attend public schools.

3. The Filipino flag is not an image that requires

religious veneration; rather it is symbol of the
Republic of the Philippines, of sovereignty, an
emblem of freedom, liberty and national unity; that
the flag salute is not a religious ceremony but an
act and profession of love and allegiance and
pledge of loyalty to the fatherland which the flag
stands for; that by authority of the legislature, the