Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court concerning enforcement of the Espionage Act of 1917 during World War I.A unanimous Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., concluded that Charles Schenck and other defendants, who distributed flyers to draft-age men urging resistance to induction, could be convicted of an ...
The phrase is a paraphrasing of a dictum, or non-binding statement, from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.'s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919, which held that the defendant's speech in opposition to the draft during World War I was not protected free speech under the First Amendment of the United ...
Schenck v. United States: 249 U.S. 47 (1919) freedom of speech, “clear and present danger”, “shouting fire in a crowded theater” Debs v. United States: 249 U.S. 211 (1919) sedition Abrams v. United States: 250 U.S. 616 (1919) validity of criminalizing criticism of the government Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States: 251 U.S. 385 (1920)
The Supreme Court disagreed. The Espionage Act limits on free speech were ruled constitutional in the U.S. Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States (1919). [38] Schenck, an anti-war Socialist, had been convicted of violating the Act when he sent anti-draft pamphlets to men eligible for the draft.
(Overruled by Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson (1952)) Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919) Expressions in which the circumstances are intended to result in crime that poses a clear and present danger of succeeding can be punished without violating the First Amendment. (Overruled by Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)) Abrams v.
Debs v. United States (1919) Schenck v. United States (1919) Abrams v. United States (1919) Gitlow v. New York (1925) Whitney v. California (1927) Dennis v. United States (1951) Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control Board (1955) Yates v. United States (1957) Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
In the early 20th century, incitement was determined by the "clear and present danger" standard established in Schenck v. United States (1919), in which Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. observed: "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 ...
The ruling came about after Jay Near's newspaper, The Saturday Press, ... (Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 52, 39 S. Ct. 247, 249). No one would question but ...