Talk:Clear and present danger

Untitled
This article should list Korematsu v. United States in See Also, as that case is rather famous and uses the same principle. I'll add one, but remove it if you find it unnessecary.71.126.5.147 (talk) 22:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The clear and present danger test is still good law and has not been overruled. Consequently, I am removing the invalid sections of this article.


 * The above comment is correct. I have changed the word "overturned" to "modified" and changed the wording of the sentence somewhat.Jeffmatt 11:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The current standard that is followed is that of Brandenburg. I have changed "is" to "was" - since later in the article it says, "the "clear and present danger" criterion of the Schenck decision was replaced in 1969 by Brandenburg v. Ohio." [Emphasis added]... To argue that it has been "refined" or "modified" and not "replaced" is akin to saying that the Congress of Confederation (which was the governing legislative body until 1789) was "refined" to the U.S. Congress. Today, the applicable legislative body is the U.S. Congress (which was born from the old Congress), just as the current legal standard is the "imminent lawless action" test (which was born from the "clear and present danger" test). User: Xunex 2:21, 23 December 2012

I've made some addtitions regarding how C&PD was first mentioned but not actually used as a Test until Brandenburg. If you need a source you can look at "Free Speech in its forgotten yeaes" by David M. Rabban, specifically page 282. But all you really need to do is look up Abrams v. US (US 1919) and note that the only mention of "Clear and Present Danger" is in Holmes' dissent, not the majority opinion.

A reference to the corresponding chapter in Meiklejohns Reply would be helpful. Although treats Chafee interpretations and Holmes position also in the following chapters. Meiklejohn, A. (1948) Free speech and its relation to self-government: Chapter II: Clear and present danger, pp. 28-56 http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/UW/UW-idx?type=article&did=UW.MeikFreeSp.i0009&id=UW.MeikFreeSp&isize=M 62.203.95.159 (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)noa

Assessment
I rated this article as mid-importance because it is a foundation doctrine of First Amendment jurisprudence. Schenck v. United States is a case studied in upper level American Constitutional Law classes, but is not part of the required or core curriculum of the ABA. Legis Nuntius (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Quality
This article has been ranked of poor quality by: me. It is rather technical and lacks a proper introduction about what it all means in lay terms. --62.243.83.221 (talk) 20:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Clear and present danger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080422191505/http://www.lurj.org/article.php/vol2n1/firstamend.xml to http://www.lurj.org/article.php/vol2n1/firstamend.xml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:36, 3 December 2017 (UTC)