Quizlet
or
There are no sets in this subject.
No groups found.
| clear and present danger test definitions | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| # | Definition | Sets | |
| 1 | interpretation of the first amendment that holds that the government cannot interfere with speech unless the speech presents a clear and present danger that it will lead to evil or illegal acts. | 6 sets | |
| 2 | started by schenck case; government cannot interfere with speech unless the speech presents a clear and present danger that it will lead to evil or illegal acts; to shout "fire" falsely in a crowded theater | 4 sets | |
| 3 | the test proposed by justice oliver wendell holmes for determining when government may restrict free speech. restrictions are permissible, he argued, only when speech creates a clear and present danger to the public order. | 3 sets | |
| 4 | interpretation of the 1st amendment that holds that the government cannot interfere with speech unless the speech presents a clear and present danger that it will lead to evil or illegal acts | 2 sets | |
| 5 | weather the words are inappropriate in the context. "fire" in a movie theater... supporters concede that speech is not an absolute right, but the government should not be able to limit it unless they can demonstrate a close connection between the speech and an imminent lawless act. | 2 sets | |
| 6 | a free speech test allowing states to regulate only speech that has an immediate connection to an action the states are permitted to regulate | 1 set | |
| 7 | a free speech test allowing states to regulate only speech that has an immediate connection to an action the states are permitted to regulate. | 1 set | |
| 8 | the policy limiting the rights of free speech if the government deems certian forms of speech as a threat to the public. these limits were first defined in the case schenk v. u.s. (1919). | 1 set | |
| 9 | free speech test that only prohibits speech that produces a clear and immediate danger. | 1 set | |
| 10 | used to draw line between protected speech and unprotected | 1 set | |
| 11 | test articulated by the supreme court in schenk v. u.s. (1919) to draw the line between protected and unprotected speech; the court looks to see 'whether the words are used' could 'create a clear and present danger that they will bring abou substantive evils' that congress seeks 'to prevent' | 1 set | |
| 12 | a rule used by the supreme court to distinguish between speech protected and not protected by the first amendment. under this rule, the first amendment does not protect speech aimed at inciting an illegal action. | 1 set | |
| 13 | test of whether words are so potentially dangerous as to not be protected by the first amendment | 1 set | |
| 14 | do the words "create a present danger that they will bring about the... evils that congress has right to prevent" | 1 set | |
| 15 | law should not punish speech unless there was a clear and present danger of producing harmful actions. | 1 set | |
| 16 | interpretation of the 1st amendment that holds that the gov't cannot interfere with speech unless the speech presents a clear and present danger that it will lead to evil or illegal acts | 1 set | |
| 17 | test articulated by the supreme court in schenck v. u.s. (1919) to draw the line between protected and unprotected speech; the court looks to see "whether the words used..." could "create a clear and present danger that they will bring about substantive evils" that congress seeks "to prevent." | 1 set | |
| 18 | interpretation of the 1st amendment that holds that the government cannot interfere with speech unless the speech presents a clear and present danger that it will lead to evil or illegal | 1 set | |
| 19 | interpretation of the first amendment that holds that the government cannot interfere with speech unless the speech presents a clear and present danger that it will lead to evil or illegal acts | 1 set | |
| 20 | test proposed for determining when government may restrict free speech. restrictions are permissible when it creates a present danger to the public. | 1 set | |
| 21 | the test proposed by justice oliver wendell holmes for determining when government may restrict free speech. restrictions are permissible, he argued, only when speech creates a clear and present danger to the public order | 1 set | |
| 22 | interpretation by justice oliver wendell holmes regarding limits on free speech if it presents clear and present danger to the public or leads to illegal actions. | 1 set | |
| 23 | advocacy must be directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such actions | 1 set | |
| 24 | govt. cannot interfere with freedom of speech unless it can prove to be dangerous. | 1 set | |
| 25 | test that tetermines when government may restrict free speech. | 1 set | |
| 26 | law should not punish speech unless there was a clear and present danger of producing harmful acitons | 1 set | |
| 27 | interpretation by justice oliver wendell holmes regarding limits on free speech if it presents clear and present danger to the public or leads to illegal actions (fire!) | 1 set | |
| 28 | interpretation by justice oliver wendell holmes regarding limits on free speech if it presents clear and present danger to the public or leads to illegal actions; for example, one cannot shout “fire!” in a crowded theatre. | 1 set | |
| 29 | test devised by supreme court in 1919 to define the limits of free speech in the context of national security. | 1 set | |
| 30 | to determine when speech could be suppressed under the first amendment | 1 set | |
| 31 | defines the limitations of free speech/1st amendment | 1 set | |
| 32 | a standard for determining when government has exceeded its constitutional authority to restrict speech | 1 set | |
| 33 | a speech can be stopped if it is starting a riot, "disturbing the peace" | 1 set | |
| 34 | a speech can be stopped if it is causing a riot | 1 set | |
| 35 | the test proposed by justice oliver wendell holmes for determining when government may restrict free speech. | 1 set | |
| 36 | determining when government may restrict free speech. | 1 set | |
| 37 | started by schenck case; government cannot interfere with speech unless the speech instigates immediate danger that it will lead to evil or illegal acts; to shout "fire" falsely in a crowded theater | 1 set | |
| 38 | rule used by the courts that allows language to be regulated only if it presents an immediate and urgent danger | 1 set | |
| 39 | law should not punich speech unless there was a clear and present danger of producing harmful actions. | 1 set | |
| 40 | interpretation by justice oliver wendell holmes regarding limits on free speech if it presents clear and present danger to the public or leads to illegal actions; for example, one cannot shout "fire!" in a crowded theater. | 1 set | |