...question remains as to what is the test. Referring to the Schenck = case, Mr. Justice Holmes said : "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...

...the criterion sanctioned by the full court in Schenck v. United States, 249 US 47, 52, applies: "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...

...unanimous opinion the Supreme Court of the United States said: 'The question in every case is whether words used are used in such circumstances and are...bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.' Speaking, in a later case, of the Espionage Act, the Supreme Court of the United...

...saying all that was said in the circular would have been within their constitutional rights * * *. 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...

...United States, 249 US 47. In a unanimous opinion the Supreme Court of the United States said : ' The question in every case is whether the words used are...bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.' Speaking in a later case of the Espionage act, the Supreme Court of the United States...

...utterance, however passionate, should be that sanctioned by the Supreme Court in a previous decision: 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...

...(1993) (noting, too, the influence of Frankfurter, Laski, and Hand). 33. Schenck, 249 US at 52 ("The question in every case is whether the words used are...bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."). 34. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Natural Law, 32 HARV. L. REV. 40, 40 (1918). 35....

...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...