...Writing for the Court, Justice Holmes announced the clear and present danger test and proclaimed that "[t]he most stringent protection of free speech would...protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre." Speech can be suppressed, in other words, if there is "a clear and present danger" that it will bring...

...pornography, eventually settling on the slightly more graphic characterization, "that which gives me wood." "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic" -Schenck v. United States (1919) Holmes's famous dictum on the limits...

...constitutional rights. But the character of 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 fire in a theater, and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction ugainst uttering words...

...constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. 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 in everv case is whether the words used are used in...

...these leaflets. "But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. The most stringent protection of free speech 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...

...to be protected. The character of every act depends upon the circumstance in which it is done.. . . 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 in every case is whether the words used are used in...

...clarify these ambiguities. should be done by an independent body. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, "the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing The tyranny of the majority is a good reason to resist government censorship. A...

...to refuse to submit to the draft." The Court held that the doctrine of free speech "does not . . . protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force" and that such circumstances are justified "[w]hen a nation is at war [because] many things that might...

...dissenting opinions and is remembered especially for his doctrine of clear and present danger, saying, "Free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing panic." He was an active layman in the First Parish of Cambridge, Massachusetts (Unitarian). Holmes...

...Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, "the most The tyranny of the majority is a good reason to resist stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic." We accept limitations on free speech when it may threaten public safety....