1 - Schenck v United States (1919) - Justice Holmes wrote...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Schenck v United States (1919) - Justice Holmes wrote opinion establishes the “clear and present danger” test - Are people allowed to speak out against the draft? - Falsely shout fire in a crowded theater - Uses common law reasoning more than precedent Difference between Obama telling people about the pains and troubles of wars (amputees) because he was just trying to change public opinion rather than oppose illegal action Abrams et al v. United States (1919) - Justice John Clark – case like Schenck – conduct that is meant to cripple war effort in the U.S. - Holmes writes the dissent – no evidence that the pamphlets, which were thrown out of a NYC window, did not actually have offensive propaganda o Cannot interfere with the war effort o But what is the intent - “Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly illogical” How is the test in Abrams different from Schenck? Palmer raids 1920
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 09/27/2011 for the course HIST 169 taught by Professor Berry during the Spring '10 term at UPenn.

Page1 / 2

1 - Schenck v United States (1919) - Justice Holmes wrote...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online