Free Speech

Paragraph: 15 - N95* '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 about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree.'

Notes:

• N95* / quote / ? / Q0004 /

Preferred Terms:

Phrase match: a right to prevent. It is

Source: http://freespeech.iath.virginia.edu/exist-speech/cocoon/freespeech/FOS_newSTerms_One?doc=/db/fos_all/federal/SC/1960s/19690609.395.US.444.xml&keyword1=right to&wordsBefore=1&wordsAfter=3#m1

Search time: 2018-01-12 14:48:12 Searcher: ars9ef Editor: ars9ef tcs9pk Segmenter: ars9ef tcs9pk

Paragraph: 7 - These later decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. As we said in Noto v. United States, 367 U.S. 290, 297—298, 81 S.Ct. 1517, 1520—1521, 6 L.Ed.2d 836 (1961), N42* 'the mere abstract teaching * * * of the moral propriety or even moral necessity for a resort to force and violence, is not the same as preparing a group for violent action and steeling it to such action.'

Notes:

• N42* / quote / endorsement / Q0213 /

Preferred Terms:

• (is) advocacy of force
• (reg) inciting lawless action

Phrase match: of free speech and free press

Source: http://freespeech.iath.virginia.edu/exist-speech/cocoon/freespeech/FOS_newSTerms_One?doc=/db/fos_all/federal/SC/1960s/19690609.395.US.444.xml&keyword1=speech&wordsBefore=2&wordsAfter=3#m1

Search time: 2017-11-10 14:59:38 Searcher: clm6u Editor: ars9ef tcs9pk Segmenter: ars9ef tcs9pk