Schenck v. United States - Significance, "largely Instrumental In Sending The Circulars About", Clear And Present Danger Test, Further Readings
Appellant
Charles T. Schenck
Appellee
United States
Appellant's Claim
That his speech was protected by the First Amendment.
Chief Lawyers for Appellant
Henry J. Gibbons, Henry John Nelson
Chief Lawyer for Appellee
John Lord O'Brian
Justices for the Court
Louis D. Brandeis, John Hessin Clarke, William Rufus Day, Oliver Wendell Holmes (writing for the Court), Charles Evans Hughes, Joseph McKenna, James Clark McReynolds, Willis Van Devanter, Edward Douglass White
Justices Dissenting
None
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
3 March 1919
Decision
Schenck's speech was not protected by the First Amendment and his conviction under the Espionage Act was upheld.
Related Cases
- Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919).
- Gitlow v. United States, 268 U.S. 652 (1925).
Sources
Abraham, Henry J. and Barbara A. Perry. Freedom & The Court: Civil Rights & Liberties in the United States. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.
User Comments Add a comment…
2 months ago
christina » jmfan52891 ((at)) yahoo dot com
No, "Me" I'm saying uneducated people shouldn't spout off about nonsense that they don't even know what they are talking about.
Brian, thankyou, I agree with you. Law would not exist if there was not some sort of limitation to the power a citizen can hold.
4 months ago
Brian » mentor2u ((at)) gmail dot com
Ah, federalist, is it?
You know Jefferson, who was not much for federalists had something to say about setting aside the law when it comes to clear and present danger. "A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means."
4 months ago
Brian » mentor2u ((at)) gmail dot com
Ah, federalist, is it?
You know Jefferson, who was not much for federalists had something to say about setting aside the law when it comes to clear and present danger. "A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means."
11 months ago
Me » oaxaqs800b ((at)) yahoo dot com
Shut up Christina u federalist! Read on how Madison drafted the 1st amendment against fearful people like you and to keep the government from doing things like it did to Schenk. And even if KD did misspell, how does that give of take away value from his opinion.. So that would mean people who dont have the same abilities as others have opinions that are worth less??? If you pride yourself in your country, and im assuming you do since you want to protect it from harm, then uphold the laws and what they intended to do. 1st amendment reads no congress shall pass any law prohibiting the free exercise of speech +press or to peacefully petition.
11 months ago
Christina » jmfan52891 ((at)) yahoo dot com
So maybe his comment was from a year ago..but I have to protest, KD is a complete and utter idiot if he/she thinks that there can't be some sort of limitations of power that citizens hold.
KD, when you learn to spell, maybe your opinion will be worth a bit more merit. If the situation brings about a clear and present danger, and is a possible threat to society, would it be more beneficial to let it happen, or stop it in its tracks?
about 1 year ago
dom » d_man_5009 ((at)) yahoo dot com
Who were the judges durring the case
almost 2 years ago
j » j ((at)) yahoo dot com
Thank you really great site! Incredibly Helpful!
almost 2 years ago
KD » wyomingkatie ((at)) aol dot com
good information, But if I was a judge on the supureme cort, and if they had any sence, The cort would have decited in favor of Schenck, Every one has the freedom of speach in America. That is what America is for, the frist admendment says that the goverment can make NO law abridging the freedom of speach and press
about 2 years ago
Vinny » dukefan123123 ((at)) aol dot com
AMAZING INFORMATION
about 2 years ago
IN » guess46 ((at)) msn dot com
Very Very helpful!
over 2 years ago
sd » staiged9 ((at)) together dot net
very helpful