...War I and thus allegedly impeding military recruitment. In upholding their convictions, Holmes wrote: The most stringent protection of free speech would...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 are of...

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

...what Holmes called "impassioned language." In upholding Schenk's conviction, Holmes wrote as follows: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. The question is whether the words used are used ... to create a clear...

...speech. In Schenck v. United States (1919), Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., wrote, "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing panic." Holmes made no reference to the theater being...

...character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. Aikens v. Wisconsin [1904]. ized as within the competency Campers v. Buck's Stove 61 Range Co. [1911]. The question in every case is whether the words used are...

...the most famous paeans to free speech in American history, he then offered the following observation: "The most stringent protection of free speech would...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 are of...

...Example 2. "Three generations of imbeciles are enough." — Buck v. Bell, 2.74 US 2.00, 207 (1927); "The most stringent protection of free speech would...falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." — Schenck v. US, 249 US 47, 52 (1919); "Neither are we troubled by the question where to draw the...

...he established what became known as the "clear and present danger" standard for free speech cases. "The most stringent protection of free speech would...in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing panic," Holmes wrote in Schenck. Debs was convicted for obstructing conscription by giving speeches...

...Schenck v. the US Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' opinion for the Court include his famous dicta that "the most stringent protection of free speech would...man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre [...]" and "the question [...] is whether the words used [...] are of such a nature as to create a clear and present...

...not involve prior restraint on free expression. Justice Holmes summed up his central idea as follows: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing panic."35 A deliberate falsification of facts, if it led to panic and endangered...