Practice question
The government prohibits a forthcoming report on alleged electoral misconduct because officials fear it might embarrass the administration and perhaps cause unspecified unrest. The restraint targets the report's content. The government presents no substantive and imminent danger, relying solely on hypothetical fears. Under Chavez, what is the strongest answer?
- The stated speculative fears do not overcome the heavy presumption against this content-based prior restraint
- Embarrassment alone always justifies censorship
- Every reference to unrest conclusively establishes clear and present danger
- An accusation concerning officials is outside press freedom
- The report automatically loses protection because officials dispute it
Legal references
- 1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 4, freedom of speech, expression and the press: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/3/353
- Chavez v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 168338, February 15, 2008, main decision, prior restraint, governmental threats and clear and present danger: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_168338_2008.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.