 | Richard C. Leone, Gregory Anrig, C Leone - 2007 - 294 หน้า
...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... | |
 | Ann Hagedorn - 2007 - 576 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 used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that will bring about the substantive evils... | |
 | Robert Danisch - 2007 - 220 หน้า
...protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force. . . . 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... | |
 | Laura K. Donohue - 2008
...that "the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done." For Holmes, "The question in every case is whether the words used are...bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." It was "a question of proximity and degree."28 Although the United States had already... | |
 | Des Freedman - 2008 - 273 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. (Quoted in Abrams 1919: 52) This notion of 'clear and present danger' remains the... | |
| |
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. 
