Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

clear-and-present-danger test

Read a random definition: hometowned

A quick definition of clear-and-present-danger test:

The clear-and-present-danger test is a rule in constitutional law that allows the government to limit freedom of speech and press if it is necessary to prevent immediate and severe harm to things that the government is allowed to protect. This rule was created by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in 1919. It means that if someone's words or actions could cause serious harm, the government can stop them from speaking or acting in that way. The government must prove that the harm is clear and present, meaning it is happening right now or is very likely to happen soon.

A more thorough explanation:

The clear-and-present-danger test is a doctrine in constitutional law that allows the government to restrict the First Amendment freedoms of speech and press if it is necessary to prevent immediate and severe danger to interests that the government may lawfully protect. This test was formulated by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in the case of Schenck v. United States in 1919.

For example, if someone is giving a speech that encourages violence or illegal activity, the government may restrict that speech if it poses a clear and present danger to public safety. However, if the speech is simply expressing an opinion or advocating for a political position, it is protected by the First Amendment.

The clear-and-present-danger test is concerned with distinguishing protected advocacy from unprotected incitement of violent or illegal conduct. The question in every case is whether the words used are used in 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.

clearance card | clear annual value

Warning

Info

General

General chat about the legal profession.
main_chatroom
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
BookwormBroker
16:10
same
RoaldDahl
16:10
@HopefullyInLawSchool: what if i already got rejected. does it mean anything
HopefullyInLawSchool
16:12
@RoaldDahl: Likely not however it could mean nothing
RoaldDahl
16:15
So if it means nothing does that mean something?
HopefullyInLawSchool
16:17
Possibly
RoaldDahl
16:26
Cool
RoaldDahl
16:26
thank you!!!! i hope it means something
pinkandblue
16:31
fart
IrishDinosaur
16:36
Mich R gang lesgooo
Did anyone else get that random get to know nova email?
HopefullyInLawSchool
17:21
Ya it was sent to all YM applicants
starfishies
17:37
Anyone get the NDLS email inviting you to apply for something even though they haven’t made a decision on your app yet
17:38
Better yet I got the email and I was rejected last month
starfishies
17:38
Wtf
starfishies
17:39
and the deadline is in like a week what is this
any cardozo movement?
BatmanBeyond
18:01
Sent a LOCI via portal, but I'm wondering if email would have gotten me a swifter response
BatmanBeyond
18:02
This whole hold/wait-list/reserve system is a headache
loci already?
BatmanBeyond
18:09
If the odds are like 1-2% I don't think it matters much by the numbers
12:11
I got the same NDLS email
OrangeThing
12:18
I think the user profiles are broken
19:29
Any word out of Notre Dame?
19:29
Only the invitation to apply for LSE
19:29
Anyone received a decision from NDLS?
19:50
when did u guys apply that just heard from umich? they havent even glanced at my app yet
0:30
how am i supposed to spy on people when profile links are broken?
Right. Broken links smh
I've been UR since first/second week of Jan, no updates otherwise, is that a bad sign? At or above median LSAT and above 75th gpa.
The profile links are not working for me. anybody else?
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.