 | Tom Goldstein, Jethro K. Lieberman - 2003 - 289 str.
...effortlessly.20 The criminal is to go free because the constable has blundered. — Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [This is one of the most widely quoted and misquoted pieces of jurisprudence;... | |
 | Thomas Scanlon - 2003 - 290 str.
...of this are defamation and interference with the right to a fair trial. 4. As Justice Holmes said, "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic."' 5. One person may through an act of expression contribute to the production... | |
 | Jacob A. Stein - 320 str.
...no citation more than ten years old. Whenever I wrote the word "speech" the pen, on its own, wrote "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic." In writing personal letters the pen was relaxed and informal. The pen... | |
 | Richard A. Posner - 2009 - 428 str.
...these leaflets. "But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater, and causing a panic."10 Speech may be punished when "the words used are used in such circumstances... | |
 | Joseph Francis Menez, John R. Vile - 2004 - 660 str.
...Many things that may be of no consequence in time of peace may not be said when a nation is at war. "The most stringent protection of free speech would...falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." The statute punishes conspiracies to obstruct as well as actual obstruction. There are no grounds for... | |
 | Murray Dry - 2004 - 324 str.
...to preventing prior restraints, he introduced the famous "clear and present danger" test this way: The most stringent protection of free speech would...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... | |
 | Jay Shafritz - 2004 - 319 str.
...articulated by Associate Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in Schenck v. United States (1919), when he wrote that "the most stringent protection of free speech would...shouting 'fire' in a theatre and causing a panic." Holmes created the test that has often been used in free-speech cases: "The question in every case... | |
 | Maryann Zihala - 2005 - 234 str.
...constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. . . . The most stringent protection of free speech would...falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect... | |
 | John Schrems - 2004 - 408 str.
...words, "the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done," adding that "the most stringent protection of free speech would...in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing panic." The Court ruled, and this is key, that if the circumstances "create a clear and present danger"... | |
 | Stephen L. Newman - 2004 - 296 str.
...Writing for the Court, Justice Holmes announced the clear and present danger test and proclaimed that "[t]he most stringent protection of free speech would...protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre." Speech can be suppressed, in other words, if there is "a clear and present danger" that it will bring... | |
| |
The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. 
