The power to prevent harmful speech against the government
The clear and present danger test was established in Schenck.Facts: Schenck, a member of the Socialist Party, made leaflets opposed to the draftand violated the Espionage Act of 1917.Decision: The First Amendment does not protect the right to free speech when the nature or circumstances are such that the speech creates a clear and present danger of substantial harm to important national interests.sources: law class
freedom of speech
The "clear and present danger" test created the firstexception to the First Amendment Free Speech Clause, and upheld the constitutionality the Espionage Act of 1917 that authorized the US government to restrict speech it considered dangerous.The landmark case set a standard for determining reasonable constraints of expression based on whether the speech, written or spoken, constituted a "clear and present danger." In this case, the danger was determined to be a risk to the United States' recruitment and conscription efforts during WW I.Early 20th-century cases creating strict limitations on free speech, ostensibly to preserve law and order, were later overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 US 444 (1969), (the Ku Klux Klan Case) which held the government cannot restrict inflammatory speech unless its intention is to incite, and is likely to incite, "imminent lawless action."Case Citation:Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919)For more information, see Related Questions, below.
In Schenck v. United States, the Supreme Court said that speech could be more dangerous to the country when it creates a "clear and present danger" of bringing about harmful or dangerous actions that the government has the right to prevent.
Threat of overthrow
A permissible restriction on speech is when it poses a clear and imminent danger to public safety or incites violence. Restrictions can also be placed on speech that constitutes defamation, obscenity, or threats. These restrictions are typically based on legal principles such as the clear and present danger doctrine or the fighting words doctrine.
1.clear and present danger 2. the bad tendency doctrine 3. the preferred position doctrine 4. Defamatory Speech
That would probably restrict the right to free speech.
The court case you're referring to is Schenck v. United States (1919). In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that while the government can restrict speech that poses a clear and present danger, it must also respect the First Amendment rights to free speech. The ruling established a distinction between protected speech and speech that incites illegal actions, allowing states to prohibit certain expressions when they threaten national security or public order.
Create is an action or thing that is done so it is a verb.
Anarchism