Clear and present danger

Clear and present danger was a term used by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in the unanimous opinion for the case Schenck v. United States,[1] concerning the ability of the government to regulate speech against the draft during World War I:

"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 the United States Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right."

Following Schenck v. United States, "clear and present danger" became both a public metaphor for First Amendment speech[2][3] and a standard test in cases before the Court where a United States law limits a citizen's First Amendment rights; the law is deemed to be constitutional if it can be shown that the language it prohibits poses a "clear and present danger". However, the "clear and present danger" criterion of the Schenck decision was replaced in 1969 by Brandenburg v. Ohio,[4] and the test refined to determining whether the speech would provoke an "imminent lawless action".

The vast majority of legal scholars have concluded that in writing the Schenck opinion Justice Holmes never meant to replace the "bad tendency" test which had been established in the 1868 English case R. v. Hicklin and incorporated into American jurisprudence in the 1904 Supreme Court case U.S. ex rel. Turner v. Williams. This is demonstrated by the use of the word "tendency" in Schenck itself, a paragraph in Schenck explaining that the success of speech in causing the actual harm was not a prerequisite for conviction, and use of the bad-tendency test in the simultaneous Frohwerk v. United States and Debs v. United States decisions (both of which cite Schenck without using the words "clear and present danger").

However, a subsequent essay by Zechariah Chafee titled “Freedom of Speech in War Time” argued despite context that Holmes had intended to substitute clear and present danger for the bad-tendency standard a more protective standard of free speech.[5] Bad tendency was a far more ambiguous standard where speech could be punished even in the absence of identifiable danger, and as such was strongly opposed by the fledgling American Civil Liberties Union and other libertarians of the time.

Having read Chafee's article, Holmes decided to retroactively reinterpret what he had meant by "clear and present danger" and accepted Chafee's characterization of the new test in his dissent in Abrams v. United States just six months after Schenck.[6] Significantly unlike Abrams, the cases of Schenck, Frohwerk, and Debs had all produced unanimous decisions. Justice Brandeis soon began citing the "clear and present danger" test in his concurrences, but the new standard was not accepted by the full court until its official adoption in Brandenburg v. Ohio fifty years later.

See also

References

  1. ^ Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).
  2. ^ Derrick, Geoffrey J. (2007). "Why the Judiciary Should Protect First Amendment Political Speech During Wartime: The Case for Deliberative Democracy". Lethbridge Undergraduate Research Journal 2 (1). ISSN 1718-8482. http://www.lurj.org/article.php/vol2n1/firstamend.xml. 
  3. ^ Tsai, Robert L. (2004). "Fire, Metaphor, and Constitutional Myth-Making". Georgetown Law Journal 93: 181–239. ISSN 0016-8092. 
  4. ^ Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).
  5. ^ Chafee, Zechariah (1919). "Freedom of Speech in Wartime". Harvard Law Review 32 (8): 932–973. doi:10.2307/1327107. 
  6. ^ Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919).

Further reading

  • Kessler, Mark (1993). "Legal Discourse and Political Intolerance: The Ideology of Clear and Present Danger". Law & Society Review (Law & Society Review, Vol. 27, No. 3) 27 (3): 559–598. doi:10.2307/3054105. JSTOR 3054105 .
  • Ragan, Fred D. (1971). "Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Zechariah Chafee, Jr., and the Clear and Present Danger Test for Free Speech: The First Year, 1919". Journal of American History (The Journal of American History, Vol. 58, No. 1) 58 (1): 24–45. doi:10.2307/1890079. JSTOR 1890079 .
  • Schwartz, Bernard (1994). "Holmes versus Hand: Clear and Present Danger or Advocacy of Unlawful Action?". The Supreme Court Review (The Supreme Court Review, Vol. 1994) 1994: 209–245. JSTOR 3109648 .

Research resources


Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

Look at other dictionaries:

  • clear and present danger — clear and pres·ent dan·ger n: a risk or threat to safety or other public interests that is serious and imminent; esp: one that justifies limitation of a right (as freedom of speech or press) by the legislative or executive branch of government a… …   Law dictionary

  • Clear and Present Danger — Danger immédiat  Ne doit pas être confondu avec Danger grave et imminent. Danger immédiat est un roman de Tom Clancy paru en 1989. Titre original : Clear and Present Danger Adapté en film (Danger immédiat), en 1994, avec Harrison Ford… …   Wikipédia en Français

  • Clear and Present Danger — This article is about the novel. For the film based on the novel, see Clear and Present Danger (film). For the legal term, see clear and present danger. Clear and Present Danger …   Wikipedia

  • clear and present danger — noun a standard for judging when freedom of speech can be abridged no one has a right to shout fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire because such an action would pose a clear and present danger to public safety • Hypernyms: ↑danger * *… …   Useful english dictionary

  • Clear and Present Danger — Filmdaten Deutscher Titel: Das Kartell Originaltitel: Clear and Present Danger Produktionsland: USA Erscheinungsjahr: 1994 Länge: 136 Minuten Originalsprache: Englisch …   Deutsch Wikipedia

  • clear and present danger — noun 1. a serious and definite threat to the security of a country: to take action since terrorism is a clear and present danger. 2. (humorous) any serious threat or danger: a clear and present danger to the chances of our team winning.… …   Australian English dictionary

  • clear and present danger — the expression used by the US Supreme Court to indicate a situation in which complete freedom of speech is not a person’s legal right. No one has a right to say something that would cause a clear (= obvious) and present (= immediate) danger to… …   Universalium

  • clear and present danger — The test of whether words spoken or written are capable of producing such a substantial evil that they are not within the protection of the constitutional guaranty of freedom of speech and press. 16 Am J2d Const L § 347 …   Ballentine's law dictionary

  • Clear and Present Danger (film) — Clear and Present Danger Theatrical release poster Directed by Phillip Noyce S …   Wikipedia

  • clear and present danger doctrine — Doctrine in constitutional law, first formulated in Schenck v. U. S., 249 U.S. 47, 39 S.Ct. 247, 63 L.Ed. 470, providing that governmental restrictions on First Amendment freedoms of speech and press will be upheld if necessary to prevent grave… …   Black's law dictionary


Share the article and excerpts

Direct link
Do a right-click on the link above
and select “Copy Link”

We are using cookies for the best presentation of our site. Continuing to use this site, you agree with this.