In this excerpt, justice oliver wendell holmes explains his ruling in schenck v. united states. what argument is holmes making about personal rights and free speech? the question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that congress has a right to prevent. –schenck v. united states

In the excerpt, Justice Holmes is arguing, as he himself said " that whether the personal right of free speech can be infringed is a question of proximity and degree". In other words, free speech can be restricted if the speech is calling for the commitment of a crime.

In the case that brought the Court's decision, two members of the Socialist Party of the United States were convicted because they were distribuing flyers that opposed military drafting for World War I. Opposing the draft, or promoting opposition to it, was illegal under the Espionage Act of 1917, and the Supreme Court considered that those prohibitions were constitutional because the nation was at war.

To sum up, what Justice Holmes is saying is that expressing opposition to a war is a form of free speech, but promoting draft-dodging is not.

this statement is true.

forests are public goods, available for everybody. when usage of such a good becomes interesting for consumers and its usage increases, there can be a risk of overexploitation. it is a non rival good therefore, if one person consumes the good it does not reduce the availability for subsequent consumers.

these caracteristics require the establishment of measures in order to prevent the destruction of a commonly owned space, for example, to restrict the amount of people that have access to the same time.