a.    The importance of this case is how Hand’s approach differed from Holmes’.  Hand’s approach focused solely on the content of the language of the speaker (not the surrounding circumstances of the speech) in light of a close textual reading of the Act. Only direct incitement could be punished consistent with the First Am., wile legitimate agitation could not.  Holmes’ “Clear and Present Danger” test focuses on the actual context and circumstances surrounding the speech.  The main significance of Hand’s test is that, unlike the “Clear and Present Danger” test, the likely effects of speech were completely irrelevant.  For example, a person who published a direct call to violate the law could be punished, even if this call was utterly ineffectual (whereas this may not pass “Clear and Present Danger” test).  In short, Hand’s test would punish the harmless inciter.