Search results
The clear and present danger test features two independent conditions: first, the speech must impose a threat that a substantive evil might follow, and second, the threat is a real, imminent threat. The court had to identify and quantify both the nature of the threatened evil and the imminence of the perceived danger.
These are the "clear and present danger" rule and the "dangerous tendency" rule. The first as interpreted in a number of cases, means that the evil consequence of the comment or utterance must be "extremely serious and the degree of imminence extremely high" before the utterance can be punished.
Jul 5, 2024 · Learn how the Supreme Court developed the clear and present danger test to balance free speech and national security in times of war. Explore the cases, definitions, and criticisms of this standard and its variations.
As articulated in our jurisprudence, we have applied either the dangerous tendency doctrine or clear and present danger test to resolve free speech challenges. More recently, we have concluded that we have generally adhered to the clear and present danger test .
A sequel to The Cardinal of the Kremlin (1988), main character Jack Ryan becomes acting Deputy Director of Intelligence in the Central Intelligence Agency, and discovers that he is being kept in the dark by his colleagues who are conducting a covert war against a drug cartel based in Colombia.
The clear and present danger rule, announced in schenck v. united states (1919), was the earliest freedom of speech doctrine of the Supreme Court.
In particular, Holmes paid close attention to Chafee’s advice about developing the “clear and present danger” doctrine to establish more clearly the line between speech that is protected by the First Amendment and that which is not.
