...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...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 A.) Publications inciting orenccmraging...

...protect a man from an injunction against uttering words which 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. When a nation is at war many things that...

...v. United States (1919), Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, writing a unanimous opinion, declared: "The question in every case is whether the words used are...bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." Liberals and progressives cheered the clearand-present-danger test, for it seemed...

...draftees during war, as Schenck purportedly had done. "The question in every case," Holmes claimed, "is whether the words used are used in such circumstances...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...

...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...

...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...

...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...

...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...