...Holmes' conclusion in the Schenck Case, 249 US 47, 52, 39 Sup. Ct. 247, 249 (63 L. Ed. 470) : "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 aliout the substantive...

...Schenck v. United States, 249 US 47, 39 Sup. Ct. 247, 63 L. Ed. (March 3, 1919), the court said : "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 dan-' ger that they will bring about the substantive...

...States, and concerning a prosecution under that statute the Supreme Court of the United States said: "The question in every case is whether the words used are...bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." Schenck v. United States, 249 US 47, 39 Sup. Ct. 247, 63 L. Ed. 470. Applying that...

...10212a-10212h) for preventing recruiting by named illegal acts, the Supreme Court, by Justice Holmes, said: "The question in every case is whether the words used are...bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." Schenck v. US, 249 US 47, (H6 A.) Publications Inciting or encouraging revolution...

...speech 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 such circumstances and are of such nature ая to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive...

...shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an inj unction against uttering words that may have all the effect...bring /about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to 1 prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war many things that...

...rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. . . . The question in every case is whether the words used are...bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." / That is the Debs decision. That is the method in which the Supreme Court handled...

...where they conie from, to be loyal to this country," etc. Testing the record by the rule that "the question in every case is whether the words used are...bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent" (Schenck v. United States [March 3, 1919] 249 US 47, 39 Sup. Ct. 247, 63 L. Ed. 470)...

...principle laid down by him with the backing of a unanimous court in Schenck v. United States.61 "The question in every case is whether the words used are...bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." Since that case is reaffirmed by Justice Clarke this principle still remains law,...

...Justice Holmes said: " The character of every act depends on the circumstances in which it was done The question in every case is whether the words used,...bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." " Had this rule been thus affirmatively laid down earlier, it seems not unlikely...