What is "clear and present danger" to violence?

The article criticizes the legal "clear and present danger" test as lacking practical content, arguing that courts are unable to assess probabilities of a causal link between speech and violence. The author cites examples of the Religious Zionism video and Yair Golan's statement, claiming the test allows arbitrary outcomes. He concludes the debate is futile, and that offensive speech alone is sufficient to justify its suppression.

The article, by Ron Shapira, attacks the legal test of "clear and present danger" as a tool for limiting free speech. The author argues that the test, originating from American jurisprudence of the last century, is devoid of any practical meaning because courts are incapable of assessing the probability of a causal link between a particular expression and violent behavior by those exposed to it. As an example, he cites a video by the Religious Zionism party showing judges and an advisor being forcibly evacuated by police, and Yair Golan's statement about killing babies. The author claims that courts are limited to impressionistic inference from life experience, and that the relative error in assessing the probability of a rare event reaches about 5,000 percent. He concludes that the debate over the test is futile, and that the fact that these are offensive expressions is sufficient to justify their suppression, citing "and let there not be like Korah and his congregation."

What is "clear and present danger" to violence?