...of this are defamation and interference with the right to a fair trial. 4. As Justice Holmes said, "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic."' 5. One person may through an act of expression contribute to the production...

...no citation more than ten years old. Whenever I wrote the word "speech" the pen, on its own, wrote "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic." In writing personal letters the pen was relaxed and informal. The pen...

...question in the following passage, one of the most famous in the annals of American legal history: We admit that in many places and in ordinary times...would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater, and causing a panic. . . . The question in everv case is whether the words used are used in...

...which was determined based upon the content of the publication. Wrote Justice Holmes (Schenck 1919, 52): We admit that in many places and in ordinary...every act depends upon the circumstances in which it was done. . . . The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting...

...Holmes wrote, the Socialist Party might have had a First Amendment right to distribute these leaflets. "But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances...would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater, and causing a panic."7 Speech may therefore be suppressed when "the words used are used in...

...Justice Holmes (Schenck 1919, 52): We admit that in many places and in ordinary times the détendants, in saying all that was said in the circular, would...every act depends upon the circumstances in which it was done. . . . The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting...

...to preventing prior restraints, he introduced the famous "clear and present danger" test this way: 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...

...articulated by Associate Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in Schenck v. United States (1919), when he wrote that "the most stringent protection of free speech would...shouting 'fire' in a theatre and causing a panic." Holmes created the test that has often been used in free-speech cases: "The question in every case...

...Many things that may be of no consequence in time of peace may not be said when a nation is at war. "The most stringent protection of free speech would...falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." The statute punishes conspiracies to obstruct as well as actual obstruction. There are no grounds for...

...expression and that of society to be protected. The character of every act depends upon the circumstance in which it is done.. . . The most stringent protection...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...