...the reader to view Schenck as inciting panic. Holmes continued with another memorable sentence: "The question in every case is whether the words used are...bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." Although Holmes did not invent the "clear and present danger" test in First Amendment...

...affirmance of the conviction for the Supreme Court in 1919, had rather casually observed that "the question in every case is whether the words used are...bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." That Schenck's conviction should have been affirmed after such a statement of the...

...clear-and-present-danger language that in later cases would be reinterpreted more broadly: "The 96 question in every case is whether the words used are...bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." In Frohwerk v. United States (1919), Holmes concluded: "[I]t is impossible to say...

...test. The test, created by Justice Holmes in the 1919 decision of Schenck v. United States, 202 asks "whether the words used are used in such circumstances...bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."203 Holmes characterized the question as a matter "of proximity and degree."204 According...

...speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. . . . The question in every case is whether the words used are...bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." These ringing sentences have come, over the years, to stand for a broad libertarian...

...speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater. and causing a panic. . . . The question in every case is whether the words used are...bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent 49 Note that Holmes invoked the "false cry of fire" for two purposes. First. he used...

...become illegal? The US Supreme Court explains the answer as a matter of "proximity and degree": The question in every case is whether the words used are...bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.5 So what do you think? Is there a "clear and present danger" when a popular rap artist...

...protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction...words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive...

...the constitutionality of the law. "The question in every case," he wrote in a controversial decision, "is whether the words used are used in such circumstances...bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." Schenk's "words," he insisted, were designed to undermine the draft and were therefore...

...protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing citizens of the United States, or shall deprive any...liberty, or property without due process of law, or Campers v. Buck's Stove 61 Range Co. [1911]. The question in every case is whether the words used are...