Schenck v US 1st Amendment Did Schencks conviction under the Espionage Act for

Schenck v us 1st amendment did schencks conviction

This preview shows page 8 - 10 out of 14 pages.

Schenck v. US 1st Amendment - Did Schenck’s conviction under the Espionage Act for criticizing the draft violate his rights? ( Freedom of Speech ) - Charles Schenck and Elizabeth Baer distributed leaflets declaring that the draft violated the Thirteenth Amendment prohibition against involuntary servitude. The leaflets urged the public to disobey the draft, but advised only peaceful action. Schenck was charged with conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act of 1917 by attempting to cause insubordination in the military and to obstruct recruitment. - The act did not violate his rights as it was an appropriate exercise of wartime authority - In times of “ clear and present danger ,” the 1st Amendment does not protect speech Brandenburg v. Ohio 1st Amendment - prohibiting public speech that advocates various illegal activities, violate Brandenburg's right to free speech as protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments ( Freedom of Expression ) - The Court used a two-pronged test to evaluate speech acts: (1) speech can be prohibited if it is " directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action " and (2) it is "likely to incite or produce such action." - FIghting words - make the person to whom they are addressed commit an act of violent Citizens United v. FEC 1st Amendment - Spending Money is a form of free speech. ( Freedom of Speech ) - the majority held that under the First Amendment corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited.
Image of page 8
Near v. Minnesota 1st Amendment - Does Minnesota’s “gag law” violate the free press provision of the 1st Amendment? (Freedom of the Press ) In a Minneapolis newspaper called The Saturday Press, Jay Near and Howard Guilford accused local officials of being implicated with gangsters. Minnesota officials sought a permanent injunction against The Saturday Press on the grounds that it violated the Public Nuisance Law because it was malicious, scandalous, and defamatory. The law provided that any person "engaged in the business" of regularly publishing or circulating an "obscene, lewd, and lascivious" or a "malicious, scandalous and defamatory" newspaper or periodical was guilty of a nuisance, and could be enjoined from further committing or maintaining the nuisance. - The statute was unconstitutional as it constituted a “ prior restraint - Judicial suppression of material that would be published or broadcasts on the grounds that it is libelous or harmful - Print media enjoys freedom from prior restraint New York Times v. Sullivan 1st Amendment - Freedom of the Press During the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, the New York Times published an ad for contributing donations to defend Martin Luther King, Jr., on perjury charges. The ad contained several minor factual inaccuracies. The city Public Safety Commissioner, L.B. Sullivan, felt that the criticism of his subordinates reflected on him, even though he was not mentioned in the ad. Sullivan sent a written request to the Times to publicly retract the information, as required for a public figure to seek punitive damages in a libel action under Alabama law.
Image of page 9
Image of page 10

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 14 pages?

  • Fall '19
  • Supreme Court of the United States, Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, United States Bill of Rights

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture