Introduction The case of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks created an unprecedented controversy in the American society. However, apart from that, it raised a number of the legal and constitutional issues and brought many questions to the public attention. There is an opinion that WikiLeaks attracted attention to the questions of the privacy and security of the citizens, but at the same time, some claim that the organization creates a danger to the public safety. Julian Assange’s initiative raised the debate about the controversial constitutional clauses, but the activity of the organization was regarded as espionage harmful to the national security. The important aspect of the case is the fact that it cannot be treated in the same way as the previous cases of espionage since it is surrounded by the different factual circumstances (Elsea 4). Another significant issue is that the precedent of WikiLeaks questions the power of traditional journalism to articulate the needs of the society and to monitor the governments. If Julian Assange is considered an exemplary journalist, it would mean that the traditional media do not use their freedom of speech to the full potential and, therefore, cannot be regarded as the fourth estate of the state structure. Thus, the objective of this paper is to describe the clear and present danger test, bad tendency test and preferred freedoms test in order to analyze the factual circumstances surrounding the cases concerning free speech and First Amendment. The objective is also to compare and contrast the similarities and differences between the case of WikiLeaks and the previous cases. Preferred freedoms test The development of the matter of freedom of speech began in 1990’s. Prior to that time, the questions and issues of the freedom of speech and its potential consequences were never so urgent in the society. However, the political and economic contexts of the beginning of the twentieth century raised some issues concerning the First Amendment. First of all, the population of the U.S. started to become more diverse not only in origins but also in different views. As a result, there were many movements both advocating some political or societal views and those who wanted to ban and prosecute any radical assemblies and initiatives. Therefore, the Congress had to introduce the reasons and laws that would justify the abridgment of freedoms in some particular cases. In order to do that, the first test that was introduced was the preferred freedoms test. Clear and present danger test For a long time after the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press guaranteed by the First Amendment could not be, in any way, abridged by the Congress. However, the historical circumstances forced the U.S. Supreme Court to introduce some means of testing whether the freedom of speech does not have any harmful effects in some particular cases. The issue was prompted in the early twentieth century when the Supreme Court started to hear the cases, in which the freedom of speech and disclosure of information could have some dangerous consequences. Especially, the situation became dramatic during the course of World War I. The clear and presen