 | Leon Newton - 2006 - 320 หน้า
...States, Oliver Wendell Holmes drafted an often-quoted opinion regarding freedom in times of war. "The question in every case is whether the words used are...bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war many things that... | |
 | Peter Irons - 2006 - 328 หน้า
...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... | |
 | Elisabeth Israels Perry, Karen Manners Smith - 2006 - 433 หน้า
...upheld the man's conviction, not because he wanted to suppress the man's right to speak but because "The question in every case is whether the words used are...bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." When his colleagues on the Court later appealed to the "clear and present danger"... | |
 | Martin H. Redish - 2005 - 324 หน้า
...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... | |
 | Earl Shorris - 2007 - 396 หน้า
...of Charles T. Schenck and Elizabeth Baer, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote for the majority: "The question in every case is whether the words used are...bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war many things that... | |
 | Shirley A. Wiegand, Wayne A. Wiegand - 2007 - 316 หน้า
...adopted the "clear and present danger" test to expand free speech protection. Under this standard, "The question in every case is whether the words used are...bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree." Without this protection, the Court had... | |
 | Jeffrey Rosen - 2007 - 288 หน้า
...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... | |
 | Geoffrey R. Stone - 2007 - 256 หน้า
...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... | |
 | Scott J. Hammond, Kevin R. Hardwick, Howard Leslie Lubert - 2007 - 988 หน้า
...uttering words that may have all the effect of force. Campers v. Buck's Stove 61 Range Co. [1911]. The equal protection of the laws. [. . .] The object of the right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war many things that... | |
 | Lisa Keen - 2007 - 188 หน้า
...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... | |
| |
The question in every case is whether the 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 evils that Congress has a right to prevent. 
