yougotlaws

SEDITIOUS SPEECH Evangelista v. Earnshaw, G.R. No. 36453, September 28, 1932 Evangelista, the President of the Communist Party of the Philippines, applied for a permit to hold a rally, before the Office of Mayor of Manila. This was refused by the Mayor, which prompted Evangelista to file a petition for mandamus before the Court. Instead of being condemned or criticised, the respondent mayor should be praised and commended for having taken a prompt, courageous, and firm stand towards the said Communist Party of the Philippines before the latter could do more damage by its revolutionary propaganda, and by the seditious speeches and utterances of its members. In the case of Gitlow vs. New York (268 U. S., 652), the Supreme Court of the United States said: Such utterances, by their very nature, involve danger to the public peace and to the security of the state. They threaten breaches of the peace and ultimate revolution. And the immediate danger is none...

SEDITIOUS SPEECH People v. Ferrer, G.R. Nos. L-32613-14 December 27, 1972 [T]he [Anti-Subversion] Act is aimed against conspiracies to overthrow the Government by force, violence or other illegal means. Whatever interest in freedom of speech and freedom of association is infringed by the prohibition against knowing membership in the Communist Party of the Philippines, is so indirect and so insubstantial as to be clearly and heavily outweighed by the overriding considerations of national security and the preservation of democratic institutions in his country. The membership clause of the U.S. Federal Smith Actis similar in many respects to the membership provision ofthe Anti-Subversion Act. The former provides: Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize anysociety, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, orencourage the overthrow or destruction of any such governmentby force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliatedwith, any such society,...

SEDITIOUS SPEECH PEOPLE V. FELEO, G.R. No. 36429.   November 3, 1932. Feleo spoke before an assembly of 100 people, where he encouraged the people to use their   guns against the American government. For this, he was convicted of the crime of sedition or inciting to sedition. Upon analysis these two questions really resolved themselves into one, which is whether the language used was seditious; for it is well established doctrine that the constitutional guaranty of the freedom of speech or of the press. The second question is whether the words used by the appellant are in fact of a seditious character. Upon analysis these two questions really resolve themselves into one, which is whether the language used was seditious; for it is well established doctrine that the constitutional guaranty of the freedom of speech and of the press does not give a person an unqualified right to speak or publish, without responsibility, whatever he may choose. That a state in t...