enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Schenck v. United States - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

    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 ...

  3. Espionage Act of 1917 - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917

    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.

  4. Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._Pro-Choice...

    Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York, 519 U.S. 357 (1997), was a case heard before the United States Supreme Court related to legal protection of access to abortion. The question before the court was whether the First Amendment was violated by placing an injunction on protesters outside abortion clinics. The court ruled in a 6–3 ...

  5. List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Rehnquist ...

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States...

    Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York: 519 U.S. 357 (1997) protesters at abortion clinics Auer v. Robbins: 519 U.S. 452 (1997) FLSA and overtime pay of police officers Warner-Jenkinson Company, Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co. 520 U.S. 17 (1997) patent law, doctrine of equivalents: Clinton v. Jones: 520 U.S. 681 (1997) Executive ...

  6. Imminent lawless action - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action

    Brandenburg clarified what constituted a "clear and present danger", the standard established by Schenck v. United States (1919), and overruled Whitney v. California (1927), which had held that speech that merely advocated violence could be made illegal.

  7. Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Wendell_Holmes_Jr.

    Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. (March 8, 1841 – March 6, 1935) was an American jurist who served as an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1902 to 1932. [A] Holmes is one of the most widely cited and influential Supreme Court justices in American history, noted for his long tenure on the Court and for his pithy opinions—particularly those on civil liberties and American ...

  8. First Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the...

    In the first of these cases, Socialist Party of America official Charles Schenck had been convicted under the Espionage Act for publishing leaflets urging resistance to the draft. [160] Schenck appealed, arguing that the Espionage Act violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. In Schenck v.

  9. Shouting fire in a crowded theater - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded...

    Writer Emma Camp has pointed out that Schenck v. United States did not actually address the question of whether or not it is illegal to "shout fire in a crowded theater", since this analogy was simply non-binding dictum used to illustrate Justice Holmes' point. [23] Ken White, an attorney and owner of Popehat, has stated that even though Schenck v.