Sec 4 Case Matrix

Art 3: BOR (Consolidated Darvin + Jech Tiu Reviewer) A.Porta, Consti II 1 Sec 4: Freedom of Speech - Case Matrix CASE DOCTRINE Prior Restraint 1. Near v. Minesota Statute does not aim to provide remedies for any wrong that may be committed through publication, but rather it is aimed towards prevention. Its object is not punishment but suppression - Although no penalty is provided, continued publication would make the publisher liable for contempt - There is restraint in future speech - Such statute amounts to prior restraint and is a form of c ensorship Prior restraint is permitted when: 1. When nation is at war 2. Obscene publications 3. Security of community life must be protected against incitements to violence and overthrow by force of orderly gov’t 2. New York Times Co. v. US Any prior restraint upon the freedom of the press bears a heavy presumption against its constitutionality. The press must be left free to publish news, whatever the source, without censorship or restraint. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose government deception. Since the Executive possessed sole power to regulate national defense and conduct foreign relations , it is likewise its responsibility to protect the confidentiality of its own records. Dissenting opinion: The Executive possesses the wisdom to determine up to what extent publication of info will prejudice the national interest, which is in keeping with the principle of the separation of powers. 3. Freedman v. Maryland Adequate standards to obviate dangers of censorship must be put in place. Final decision for suitability of publication must be in the hands of the judiciary not the administrative branch. Excessively broad licensing ability upon an administrative office must be challenged. There must be assurance of prompt judicial action. 4. Ayer Productions v. Judge Capulong Freedom of expression is available to both local and foreign production companies. Limited intrusion upon privacy of a public figure is permissible if information sought is a matter of public concern. Intrusion is reasonable to keep the film a truthful historical account There was no clear and present danger since there was no knowledge yet of the actual contents of the film (they had not finished the production) As regards with the balancing of interest, the intrusion was reasonable because EDSA revolution is a matter of national and international interest. The revolution itself did not relate to the individual and private life of Enrile, the participation of his character was all public facts. o Such public figures have lost, to some extent, their right to privacy. o No liability when they are given additional publicity as to matters legitimately within the scope of the public interest. 5. Eastern Broadcasting v. Dans Jr Gov’t has the right to be se cure against broadcasts intending to incite people to overthrow it. o Words used are of such nature to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that the Congress has the right to prevent. Radio-broadcasting receive most limited protection o Pervasive presence (reaches the privacy of the home) o Accessible to all (even children) o Audience of radio/TV have lesser opportunity to analyze and cogitate utterance (Spontaneous, cannot be unheared)

Sec 4 Case Matrix

Documents

Transcript of Sec 4 Case Matrix