ABSTRACT
Some legal doctrines are more important as manifestations of attitude than as guides to decision in specific cases. Not long ago "liberty of contract" was little more than a shorthand symbol for Spencerian sociology. More happily, in recent years "clear and present danger" has embodied a deeply democratic instinct favoring the free expression of ideas. But like "economic due process," it has been more significant as a pervasive atmospheric pressure, than as a reliable standard for the decision of a specific case or as a rationale for a line of cases. 1 The policy decision implicit in the choice of one legal doctrine over another often explains more than does the chosen doctrine itself.
