...from Holmes's majority opinion in the 1918 Schenck case that enunciated the test in these words: "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...

...protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effects of force — The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such nature as to create a clear and present danger that will bring about the substantive evils...

...harmed by unrestricted exercise of these rights. As formulated by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circamstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring...

...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. Holmes's analogy was clever and attractive. Few people would think free speech should...

...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.14 It was a clever analogy. Who would think that the right of free speech extended...

...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...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 is not absolute. Speech...

...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...

...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...

...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...

...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...