SCHENCK VS UNITED STATES (1919)

In this case, dire nato gi copy or gi adopt ang CLEAR-AND-PRESENT DANGER TEST. What happened here?

FACTS: It involved a prominent socialist John Schneck, who attempted to distribute thousands of fliers to American servicemen recently drafted
to fight for the World War I. Just like us siguro nuh in times of war we can be drafted, that happened in the United States. Now the fliers that he
distributed asserted that the draft the picking of these people amounted to involuntary servitude proscribe by their constitution which outlaws
slavery. The war itself was motivated by capitalist greed among other things so because of this he was distributing fliers na “oh you are becoming
slaves which is prohibited under the constitution”. So there is now the effect on the person receiving the flier that probably what we are doing is
wrong and unconstitutional. So because of this he was charged for violating the law here by inspiring to cause insubordination in the military and
naval forces of the United States, based on the espionage act. Naa silay law didto that punishes that.

ISSUE: His response was that, this law violated his right of freedom of speech. He was nevertheless found guilty by the courts so he went to
the Supreme Court

RULING: And here the US supreme court upheld his conviction. And ruled that the law did not violate the first amendment where his right to free
speech is granted because it passed the clear-and-present-danger test. Schneck here had really intended to undermine the draft because his flier
was designed precisely to have that effect. The character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. When in peace time
those fliers would be harmless speech however in times of war those acts would constitute national insubordination. So as an imagery here, a
man who has cries fire in a crowded theater could be made similar to that, in a quiet home that would be harmless but when you do that in a
theater na naay sunog that would produce harm, stampede. And because of that, that is the harm which is sought to be prevented by this
espionage act.

Because of the time, the circumstances that these fliers were published. Free speech rides accorded by their first amendment were not limitless
and the context determines the limits. So the question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and of such a
nature that would create a clear and present danger which would bring about to substantive evils which Congress has right to prevent. So dire
nato gikopya or gi-adopt ang clear and present danger test. However as the jurisprudence in the United States evolved they replaced it with an
imminent lawless action test. Here in the Philippines we still apply the clear-and-present danger test.

Again if that test is applied, content-based restriction the strictest scrutiny is applied by the courts. The question in every case is whether the
words are used in such circumstances in such a nature as to create a clear and present danger which would bring about to substantive evils which
the State has the right to prevent. So there is a restriction, remember Chavez v Gonzales, kani ang gigmait na test and that the act of the executive
in that case were invalidated because the words used, first of all its not even sure if the recording was genuine kung gi wire tap ba jud sya and
that in any case there was no nexus in the standard that these words do not have the nature to create this clear and present danger and that is
why, what the state did there in restricting the production of publication of Hello Garci Tapes was too much of a restriction to right to free speech.
And therefore it failed the clear and present danger test.