 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
 | Shirley A. Wiegand, Wayne A. Wiegand - 2007 - 316 str.
...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... | |
 | Earl Shorris - 2007 - 396 str.
...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... | |
 | Lisa Keen - 2007 - 188 str.
...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... | |
 | Scott J. Hammond, Kevin R. Hardwick, Howard Leslie Lubert - 2007 - 988 str.
...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... | |
 | Richard C. Leone, Gregory Anrig, C Leone - 2007 - 294 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... | |
 | Des Freedman - 2008 - 273 str.
...According to Justice Holmes: the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. The most stringent protection of free speech would...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... | |
 | 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... | |
| |
