<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!--Generated by Squarespace Site Server v5.11.5 (http://www.squarespace.com/) on Fri, 30 Jul 2010 23:16:46 GMT--><rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/" xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" version="2.0"><channel><title>Schenck v. United States (1919)</title><link>http://www.basicallylaw.com/schenck-v-united-states-1919/</link><description></description><lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Dec 2009 14:50:34 +0000</lastBuildDate><copyright></copyright><language>en-US</language><generator>Squarespace Site Server v5.11.5 (http://www.squarespace.com/)</generator><item><title>Schenck v. United States (1919)</title><dc:creator>Paul</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 07 Dec 2009 14:42:39 +0000</pubDate><link>http://www.basicallylaw.com/schenck-v-united-states-1919/2009/12/7/schenck-v-united-states-1919.html</link><guid isPermaLink="false">423563:5359820:6008150</guid><description><![CDATA[<p>Read the opinion <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0249_0047_ZO.html">here</a>.</p>
<p><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Issue</span></strong>.&nbsp; Did a federal law that made it a crime to cause or attempt to cause insubordination in the military violate the First Amendment right to free speech?</p>
<p><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Background</span></strong>.&nbsp; During World War I, Congress passed the Espionage Act.&nbsp; The Act made it a crime to cause or to attempt to cause insubordination in the military, or to obstruct in the recruiting and enlisting of individuals in the military.&nbsp; Schenck was charged under the law for printing and circulating to men who had been drafted a document alleged to advocate that&nbsp;these men obstruct military service or commit insubordination.</p>
<p>Scehenck claimed the law and his indictment violated his First Amendment Right to Freedom of Speech.&nbsp; The Supreme Court disagreed and upheld the indictment.</p>
<p><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Court's Analysis</span></strong>.&nbsp; The Court found that restraints on freedom of speech involve proximity and degree.&nbsp;&nbsp; Things that are said which may be protected in times of peace are not protected in times of war.&nbsp; The Court holds:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>[The] question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In this time of war, Congress had a right to prevent insubordination in its military ranks.</p>
<p><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Afterword</span></strong>.&nbsp; The "Clear and Present Danger" Test for Freedom of Speech Jurisprudence was rejected by the Supreme Court in subsequent cases, and <em>Schenck </em>is no longer good law.</p>]]></description><wfw:commentRss>http://www.basicallylaw.com/schenck-v-united-states-1919/rss-comments-entry-6008150.xml</wfw:commentRss></item></channel></rss>