...that the criterion sanctioned by the full Court in Schenck v. United States, 249 US 47 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...

...strident in their approach as they search for justice. The tolerance extended to minority opinions protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre'. Tolerance has been extended in cases where people have engaged in symbolic speech....

...depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. Aikens v. Wisconsin, 195 US 194, 205, 206. [1904] 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 [l91l]. The question in every case is whether the...

...Justice Holmes's metaphorical remark in Schenck v. United States (1919) explains the underlying logic: "The most stringent protection of free speech would...falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." In the employment context, the Court has assumed that the government employer would have greater latitude...

...Holmes, that free speech does have limits and that a person is not free to shout "fire" in a theater: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater, and causing a panic.") The Court upheld the conviction of Schenck, general secretary of the...

...sich Richter Holmes zum Grundrecht der Meinungsfreiheit, stellte aber zugleich fest, dass selbst die „most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing panic." Als Kriterium für die Grenzen der Meinungsfreiheit formulierte er seine...

...challenges has its roots in Schenck v. United States, 249 US 47 (1919), in which Justice Holmes wrote: "The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent"...

...including in the UK obscenity and blasphemy. In Schenck v United States (249 US 47, 1919), Justice Holmes argued: 'The most stringent protection of free...falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic'. (Theatre staff, by the way, are usually instructed not even to use the word 'fire'; the front of house...

...right to prevent. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. The most stringent protection of free speech would...falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. Justice Holmes's point was simple; it depended what you said and where you said it. Yelling, "I hate...

...deprived them of constitutional protection. With an example of unprotected speech, Holmes sprang the trap: "The most stringent protection of free speech would...falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." Perhaps no sentence in any Supreme Court opinion has been as widely — and as inaccurately — repeated....