...defendants, in saying all that was said in the circular, would have been within their constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. Now, you are going to place a very severe burden upon a prosecutor to determine what is or what is...

...right to say things which are offensive or dangerous, and the late Mr. Justice Holmes pointed out that "the most stringent protection of free speech would...not protect a man in falsely shouting 'fire' in a theater and causing a panic": freedom of the press does not afford a sanctuary from which writers may...

...petition in any manner which excites resistance to public authority or which urges its overthrow by force. "The character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done," said Justice Holmes, speaking for the Supreme Court in the Schenck case. Again, for the Supreme Court,...

...petition in any manner which excites resistance to public authority or which urges its overthrow by force. "The character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done," said Justice Holmes, speaking for the Supreme Court in the Schenck case. Again, for the Supreme Court,...

...defendants, in saying all that was said in the circular, would have been within their constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances...falsely 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...

...ordinary times" 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."10 Speech may be punished when "the words used are used in such circumstances...

...was that of an intellectual and a liberal. Holmes said the First Amendment did not protect Schenck: 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...

..."obstruct" the carrying out of the draft law. Was Schenck protected by the First Amendment? Holmes said: 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...

...welfare, safety, or morals of others. In 1919, US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., wrote: 'The most stringent protection of free speech would...falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." A person may be denied a civil right if that right is used to violate other people's rights. Freedom...

...effortlessly.20 The criminal is to go free because the constable has blundered. — Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [This is one of the most widely quoted and misquoted pieces of jurisprudence;...