PLS 460 Schenck v United States

PLS 460 Schenck v United States - This came to be known as...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Schenck v. United States Supreme Court of the United States, 1919 249 U.S. 47, 39 S.Ct. 247, 63 L.Ed. 470 Schenck was accused of violating the Espionage Act of 1917 and Sedition Act of 1918 by conspiring to cause insubordination in the army and navy and obstructing recruitment and enlistment in to the military of the United States. Schenck mailed circulars trying to convince people to not enlist and to leave the military if already enlisted. The legal question is does the Espionage and Sedition Acts violate Schenck’s freedom of speech rights. The court ruled that Schenck’s freedom of speech rights were not violated. According to Justice Holmes the rights of citizens can be restricted in times of war if they hinder the war efforts of the nation.
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: This came to be known as the clear and present danger test. Notes: Holmes says there is a clear and present danger in interfering with the draft. It has to be a kind of danger that the government can prevent. This interpretation set legal doctrine that can be taken from case to case. Holmes does not give much definition. Uses example of yelling fire in a crowded theater but not much else. Usually, get more definition. Speech when there is not time for correction presents a clear and present danger. Holmes wanted it to be applied during war time. It is dangerous because the government declares war and might declare war to stop free speech. Later has been over ruled....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 05/04/2010 for the course PLS 460 taught by Professor Lermack during the Spring '10 term at Bradley.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online