We admit that, in many places and in ordinary times, the defendants . . . would have been within their constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. . . . The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. . . . 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. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.

–Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Schenck v. United States (1919)

Based on the passage, which of the following statements best explains how the government can limit free speech?

Free speech may be suspended when the United States is at war.
Congress has a right to abolish free speech because it has a duty to protect the public.
Restrictions on free speech are unconstitutional because free speech is a basic right guaranteed by the First Amendment.
Free speech ordinarily protected by the First Amendment is subject to restriction when it reliably and immediately threatens the public.