Practice question
Officials prohibit publication of a particular political allegation because it could embarrass the administration. They defend the prohibition as content-neutral, reasoning that it applies to newspapers, radio, and online publishers alike. No separate unlawful-speech category or sufficient constitutional justification is established. Which analysis is correct?
- Uniform application across media automatically makes it neutral.
- Content depends only on the size of the publisher.
- The rule targets the allegation's message, and equal treatment across media does not remove the content-based character.
- The government's embarrassment is by itself a conclusive constitutional justification.
- Online expression has no constitutional relevance.
Legal references
- 1987 Constitution, Article III, section 4, https://lawphil.net/consti/cons1987.html
- Chavez v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 168338, February 15, 2008, content-based and content-neutral restraints discussion, https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338_2008.html
- Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015, content regulation discussion, https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_205728_2015.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.