...clear-and-present-danger language that in later cases would be reinterpreted more broadly: "The 96 question in every case is whether the words used are...bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." In Frohwerk v. United States (1919), Holmes concluded: "[I]t is impossible to say...

...upheld the man's conviction, not because he wanted to suppress the man's right to speak but because "The question in every case is whether the words used are...bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." When his colleagues on the Court later appealed to the "clear and present danger"...

...test. The test, created by Justice Holmes in the 1919 decision of Schenck v. United States, 202 asks "whether the words used are used in such circumstances...bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."203 Holmes characterized the question as a matter "of proximity and degree."204 According...

...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...

...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...

...speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater. 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 49 Note that Holmes invoked the "false cry of fire" for two purposes. First. he used...

...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." These ringing sentences have come, over the years, to stand for a broad libertarian...

...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...

...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...

...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...