About: Clear and present danger

Facets (new session)
Description
Metadata
Settings
- Rule:
- Inverse Functional Properties:
- "Same As":

About: Clear and present danger Goto Sponge NotDistinct Permalink

An Entity of Type : dbo:MilitaryUnit, within Data Space : dbpedia.org associated with source document(s)
QRcode icon

http://dbpedia.org/describe/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdbpedia.org%2Fresource%2FClear_and_present_danger

Clear and present danger was a doctrine adopted by the Supreme Court of the United States to determine under what circumstances limits can be placed on First Amendment freedoms of speech, press, or assembly. The test was replaced in 1969 with Brandenburg v. Ohio's "imminent lawless action" test.

Attributes	Values
rdf:type	Thing military unit
rdfs:label	Clear and present danger (en) 명백·현존위험의 원칙 (ko) 明白かつ現在の危険 (ja)
rdfs:comment	Clear and present danger was a doctrine adopted by the Supreme Court of the United States to determine under what circumstances limits can be placed on First Amendment freedoms of speech, press, or assembly. The test was replaced in 1969 with Brandenburg v. Ohio's "imminent lawless action" test. (en) 명백·현존 위험의 원칙(明白·現存危險-原則, rule of clear and present danger)은 미국에서 언론·출판 등의 자유를 제한하는 표준으로 채택된 원칙으로, 언론과 출판이 국가기밀을 누설하거나 타인의 명예 또는 사생활의 비밀을 침해하려고 하는 경우에 법원이나 관계기관이 정지명령 등으로 이를 억제하려 할 때 사용하는 기준을 말한다. 미국의 (Schenck v. United States, 1919)에서 홈즈 대법관에 의해 처음 사용되었다. 홈즈 대법관은 존 스튜어트 밀의 위해원칙(Harm principle)을 기초로 하여 명백하고 현존하는 위험의 원칙을 만들었다. (ko) 明白かつ現在の危険（めいはくかつげんざいのきけん、英: clear and present danger）とは、表現の自由の内容規制に関する違憲審査基準の一つ。アメリカの憲法判例で用いられ、理論化された。違憲審査基準としては非常に厳格な基準であり、対象となる人権（表現内容を根拠とする表現の自由の規制）の制約を認める範囲は、著しく限定的である（自由の制約が違憲とされやすい）。 (ja)
rdfs:seeAlso	First Amendment to the United States Constitution
foaf:depiction
dcterms:subject	1919 in law Censorship in the United States Legal tests Freedom of expression American legal terminology First Amendment to the United States Constitution Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
Wikipage page ID	45254 (xsd:integer)
Wikipage revision ID	1093800392 (xsd:integer)
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage	Prior restraint Schenck v. United States 1919 in law Censorship in the United States Brandenburg v. Ohio Debs v. United States Dennis v. United States John Turner (anarchist) List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 395 Paul Finkelman United States Congress Sacher v. United States Fred M. Vinson Frohwerk v. United States Gitlow v. New York Thornhill v. Alabama Louis Brandeis Shouting fire in a crowded theater Stromberg v. California List of national legal systems Zechariah Chafee Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten Whitney v. California William O. Douglas Abrams v. United States American Civil Liberties Union Legal tests Feiner v. New York First Amendment to the United States Constitution Balancing test American Communications Association v. Douds Left Wing Manifesto Martin Redish Hess v. Indiana Bad tendency Terminiello v. City of Chicago Freedom of expression American legal terminology First Amendment to the United States Constitution Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire Learned Hand Supreme Court of the United States Hicklin test Constitutional Imminent lawless action Korematsu v. United States Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. Oral argument in the United States Threatening the president of the United States Terminiello v. Chicago Bad tendency (legal) Draft resistance
Link from a Wikipage to an external page	https://www.jstor.org/stable/1069474 https://www.jstor.org/stable/1069631 https://www.jstor.org/stable/1284433 https://www.jstor.org/stable/1890079 https://www.jstor.org/stable/3054105 https://www.jstor.org/stable/3109648
sameAs	Clear and present danger Clear and present danger Clear and present danger Clear and present danger Clear and present danger Clear and present danger Clear and present danger
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate	dbt:' dbt:ISBN dbt:Other_uses dbt:Quote dbt:Reflist dbt:See_also dbt:Short_description dbt:Spaced_ndash dbt:Who dbt:Ussc
thumbnail	wiki-commons:Special:FilePath/Oliver_Wendell_Holmes_Jr_circa_1930-edit.jpg?width=300
has abstract	Clear and present danger was a doctrine adopted by the Supreme Court of the United States to determine under what circumstances limits can be placed on First Amendment freedoms of speech, press, or assembly. The test was replaced in 1969 with Brandenburg v. Ohio's "imminent lawless action" test. (en)

Faceted Search & Find service v1.17_git139 as of Feb 29 2024

Alternative Linked Data Documents: ODE Content Formats:

RDF

ODATA

Microdata

About

OpenLink Virtuoso version 08.03.3330 as of Mar 19 2024, on Linux (x86_64-generic-linux-glibc212), Single-Server Edition (61 GB total memory, 49 GB memory in use)
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2024 OpenLink Software