...were written by Oliver Wendell Holmes, who reasoned in Schenck that "[t]he question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances...bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent" (p. 52). Justice John H. Clarke's majority decision in Abrams closely followed Holmes's...

...of every act depends on the circumstances in which it is done. . . . The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances...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...

...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...

...shouting 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...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...

...time, 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...bring about the 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...

...man in 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...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...

...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...

...man in 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...bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.14 It was a clever analogy. Who would think that the right of free speech extended...

...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...

...pamphlets urging potential army inductees to resist conscription. "The question," Holmes declared, "is whether the words used are used in such circumstances...bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."92 Schenck had clearly counseled illegal action, and thus would have been convicted...