...of Frankfurter, Laski, and Hand). 33. Schenck, 249 US at 52 ("The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and...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....

...first formulated. In the course of his argument Mr. Holmes says, "The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and...bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." And to this he adds, a few sentences later, "It seems to be admitted that, if an...

...theater, and causing a panic."6 Holmes set forth the following test: speech can be suppressed when "the words used are used in such circumstances and...bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."7 Since the country was at war, Congress had a legitimate and indeed urgent interest...

...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 and...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...

...falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. . . . The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and...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...

...restrictive of government practice than his earlier remark in Schenck: "The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and...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...

...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 and...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...

...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 and...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...

...protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater, and causing a panic."10 Speech may be punished when "the words used are used in such circumstances and...bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."" With the country at war, Congress had a legitimate and indeed urgent interest in...

...fire in a theatre, and causing a panic. According to Holmes, "[t]he question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and...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...