LAD 31: Schenck V. United States

Summary:

During WWI, Charles Schenck and Elizabeth Baer, two socialists, claimed that the draft violated the Thirteenth Amendment, since the draft forced people to fight in the war and the amendment prohibited involuntary servitude. Because of the beliefs of these socialists, they began handing out leaflets that urged Americans to avoid the draft, but at the same time not to fall to violence. By obstructing the military in this way, Schenck was put on trial for violating the Espioage Act of 1917. Although Schenck and Baer clearly violated this act, the Supreme Court was left to decide if their conviction went against the First Amendment's freedom of speech. The Court held that the Espionage Act did not violate the First Amendment because of the government's wartime authority.

Clear and Present Danger Doctrine:

The "clear and present danger" that Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes presents is that when the nation or its citizens are in danger, the government deserves higher respect and power to override some of the freedoms given to Americans in order to protect them. In this way Congress would be able to prevent certain evils. In this case, the leaflets distributed by Schenck and Baer disrupted the conscription process and, therefore, put America in danger.

Justive Oliver Wendall Holmes Example:

He famously compared the leaflets to someone shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, which is not permitted by the First Amendment because it can be disastrous to numerous individuals.
Image result for schenck v. us
The Schenck V. United States discussed the First Amendment
Image result for abrams v united states
The Abrams v. United States Court Case also discusses the First Amendment

The Abrams v. United States Court Case is extremely similar to the Schenck v. United States Court Case. Both cases address individuals impeding on the American military during the Great War. In the Abrams v. United States case addressed leaflets that urged the curtailment of the materials necessary for the war. This case also used the clear and present danger doctrine that was used in many freedom of speech cases until the Brandenburg v. Ohio Court Case in 1969.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

LAD #14: Calhouns' Speech on the Compromise of 1850

LAD #35: Home was a Horse Stall

LAD #34: FDR's First Inaugural Address