1/4/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly established between the speech restrained and the danger contemplated; Chavez v. Gonzales, supra note 15, at 200. [29] This rule rests on the premise that speech may be restrained because there is substantial danger that the speech will likely lead to an evil the government has a right to prevent; Chavez v. Gonzales, id. [30] This is used as a standard when courts need to balance conflicting social values and individual interests, and requires a conscious and detailed consideration of the interplay of interests observable in a given situation; Chavez v. Gonzales, id. [31] Supra note 15. [32] Id. at 204-208. [33] 1-United Transport Koalisyon (1-UTAK) v. COMELEC, supra note 19, at 84. [34] See Police Department of City of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 96 (1972), wherein the U.S. Supreme Court held that the government may not grant a forum to acceptable views yet deny it from those who "express less favored or more controversial views." <https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/408/92/> (visited August 9, 2019). [35] See Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989 <https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/491/781/> (visited August 9, 2019). [36] Supra note 16. [37] 1-United Transport Koalisyon (1-UTAK) v. COMELEC, supra note 19. [38] Chavez v. Gonzales, supra note 15. [39] Social Weather Stations, Inc. v. COMELEC, 409 Phil. 571, 588 (2001). [40] The Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC, supra note 16, at 381. [41] Social Weather Stations, Inc. v. COMELEC, supra at 590. [42] Gutierrez v. The House of Representatives Committee on Justice, 658 Phil. 322, 382 (2011). [43] Philippine Consumers Foundation, Commission, 216 Phil. 185, 195 (1984). Inc. v. National Telecommunications [44] Supra note 16. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65669 18/60