...Holmes' conclusion in the Schenck Case, 249 US 47, 52, 39 Sup. Ct. 247, 249 (63 L. Ed. 470) : "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 aliout the substantive...

...Schenck v. United States, 249 US 47, 39 Sup. Ct. 247, 63 L. Ed. (March 3, 1919), the court 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 dan-' ger that they will bring about the substantive...

...Law, and concern' ing a prosecution under that act the Supreme Court of the united States said: "The question in every case is whether the words used are used in snch circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will...

...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 used in such circumstances and are of such nature ая to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive...

...free discussion will go on unchecked, except as the Supreme Court recently said, that the law will "not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." Now look at the other side of the picture. Seventy bills are introduced in Congress, inspired by. a...

...constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstance* and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will '" (1919)...

...act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. Aikens v. Wisconsin, 195 US 194, 205, 206. The most stringent protection of free speech would...uttering words that may have all the effect of force. Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 US 418, 439. The question in every case is whether the words...

...act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. Aikens v. Wisconsin, 195 US 194, 205, 206. The most stringent protection of free speech would...causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an inj unction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force. Gompers v. Bucks Stove &...

...criminal the counselling of a murder . . . would be an unconstitutional interference with free speech."37 "The most stringent protection of free speech would...falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." 38 How about the man who gets up in a theater between the acts and informs the audience honestly but...

...criminal the counselling of a murder * * * would be an unconstitutional interference with free speech.2 The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.3 How about the man who gets up in a theater between the acts and informs...