Talk:Clear and present danger

Law Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Freedom of speech Unassessed

	Freedom of speech portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

United States Unassessed

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]