Final answer:
The 'clear and present danger' phrase is used to justify limiting freedom of speech in situations where it poses a significant threat to national security or the well-being of the country during wartime. Although it is no longer the test used by the Supreme Court, certain forms of speech can still be restricted if they would clearly harm the nation or its people.
Step-by-step explanation:
The phrase 'clear and present danger' relates to freedom of speech in the context of limiting First Amendment rights when there is a potential threat to national security or the well-being of the country. It was used by Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in the case of Schenck v. United States to describe situations where public dissent during wartime can be likened to shouting 'fire!' in a crowded theater, causing panic.
Although the Court no longer relies on the 'clear and present danger' test to determine if limits on speech are constitutional, it recognizes that certain kinds of speech can still be limited, especially during times of war, if they would significantly harm the nation, its people, or its military forces.
For example, calling for violence against the government or promoting actions that pose a clear risk to national security would likely allow for the limitation of First Amendment rights under the 'clear and present danger' standard.