 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
 | Lee C. Bollinger, Geoffrey R. Stone - 2003 - 348 str.
...entertained. But the most significant contribution of the Schenck opinion was Holmes's statement that "[t]he question in every case is whether the words used are...bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." The so-called clear and present danger testhere used by Holmes to uphold the suppression... | |
 | Howard Zinn - 2003 - 372 str.
...was that of an intellectual and a liberal. Holmes said the First Amendment did not protect Schenck: The most stringent protection of free speech would...bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.14 It was a clever analogy. Who would think that the right of free speech extended... | |
 | Richard A. Epstein - 2003 - 324 str.
...principle in Abrams was more restrictive of government practice than his earlier remark in Schenck: "The question in every case is whether the words used are...bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent" (249 US at 52). 15. Note that inducement of breach of contract is not just some newly... | |
 | James A. Curry, Richard B. Riley, Richard M. Battistoni - 2003 - 660 str.
...protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre, and causing a panic. According to Holmes, "[t]he question in every case is whether the words used are...bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." To Holmes, it was "a question of proximity and degree." The defendant's words, printed... | |
 | Richard C. Leone, Gregory Anrig - 2003 - 338 str.
...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... | |
 | Richard C. Leone, Gregory Anrig - 2003 - 338 str.
...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... | |
 | 2002 - 484 str.
...first time, what became famous as the clear and present test. "The question in every case," he wrote, "is whether the words used are used in such circumstances...bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." It was in this case, too, that Holmes made it clear that the free speech guarantee... | |
 | Richard A. Posner - 2009 - 428 str.
...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 and...bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."" With the country at war, Congress had a legitimate and indeed urgent interest in... | |
 | 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...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... | |
 | Joy Hakim - 2003 - 438 str.
...most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in 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. When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such... | |
| |
