 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.  The Twentieth Century: A People's History - Strana 85autor/autoři: Howard Zinn - 2009 - 512 str.Omezený náhled - Podrobnosti o knize
 | 1922 - 1022 str.
...recruiting by named illegal acts, the Supreme Court, by Justice Holmes, said: "The question in every ease is whether the words used are used in such circumstances...bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." Schenck v. US, 249 US 47, 39 Sup. Ct. 247, 03 L. Ed. 470. 38 STATE v. SINCHUK (115... | |
 | United States. Supreme Court - 1943 - 872 str.
...protection given to utterance by the First Amendment, in order that mere utterance may not be proscribed, "the words used are used in such circumstances and...bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." Schenck v. United States, 249 US 47, 52. The "substantive evils" about which he... | |
 | United States. National Labor Relations Board - 1946 - 1314 str.
...We have then to examine the statements contained in the letter and enclosure in order to determine "whether the words used are used in such circumstances...bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." Per Justice Holmes in Schenck v. United States, 249 US 47, 52, 39 S. Ct. 247, 249,... | |
 | Maxwell Bloomfield - 2000 - 236 str.
...done," observed Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes for a unanimous Court in Schenck v. United States (1919): The most stringent protection of free speech would...bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. . . . When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are... | |
 | Michael Kent Curtis - 2000 - 544 str.
...stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man from falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [The] question in every case...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... | |
 | Patrick J. Gallo - 1999 - 416 str.
...most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater, and causing a panic The question in every case is...bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree." In brief, the First Amendment freedom... | |
 | David P. Currie - 2000 - 182 str.
...interests to the extent possible, Holmes enunciated the familiar "clear and present danger" test: The "question in every case is whether the words used...bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." l2 This test was easily met in Schenck, there was an obvious and immediate risk... | |
 | David L. Sills, Robert King Merton - 2000 - 466 str.
...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...bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. Schenck v. United States, 249 US 52, 1919.... | |
 | David Kretzmer, Francine Kerschman Hazan, Friedrich Ebert Stiftung - 2000 - 304 str.
...the question whether the leaflet was constitutionally protected free speech, Holmes declared: '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.'4 Because the "clear and present danger'... | |
| |
