Practice question
A government censor seeks an injunction against a forthcoming political broadcast. It offers only speculation that the material might have been unlawfully recorded and that airing it could cause unspecified problems. It presents no sufficient evidence of the substantive and imminent danger required to justify the content-based restraint. Which assessment best follows Chavez?
- Merely saying illegal recording conclusively meets every burden
- A broadcasting license eliminates the need for constitutional justification
- The Government must substantiate the required justification; the alleged illegality label alone does not overcome the presumption
- Courts must approve every executive request for an injunction
- The broadcaster is thereby immune from every distinct law forever
Legal references
- Chavez v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 168338, February 15, 2008, main decision: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338_2008.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.