Schenck v. United States - Significance, "largely Instrumental In Sending The Circulars About", Clear And Present Danger Test, Further Readings

court henry appellant john

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.

Additional Topics

Schenck v. United States - Significance

This case marked the first time the Supreme Court ruled directly on the extent to which the U.S. government may limit speech. It produced, in the affirmative opinion written by Justice Holmes, two of that fabled jurist's most memorable and oft-quoted statements on the law. On 15 June 1917, just after the United States entered World War I, Congress passed the Espionage Act, which made it a federal …

Schenck v. United States - "largely Instrumental In Sending The Circulars About"

As general secretary of the Socialist party, Charles T. Schenck was in charge of the Philadelphia headquarters from which the leaflets were sent. Schenck was soon arrested and indicted for sedition in conspiring to cause insubordination in the armed forces and obstruction of recruitment and enlistment. No evidence was presented to prove that he had corrupted even one draftee. Rather, the publicati…

Schenck v. United States - Clear And Present Danger Test

The U.S. Supreme Court has never held that expressive freedoms of speech, press, and assembly are completely without limits. The difficulty lies in settling on a general standard or test to be applied in determining when a form of expression becomes so threatening to society that it deserves no constitutional protection and must be controlled by government. Such judicial standards or tests, beginn…

Citing this material

Please include a link to this page if you have found this material useful for research or writing a related article. Content on this website is from high-quality, licensed material originally published in print form. You can always be sure you're reading unbiased, factual, and accurate information.

Highlight the text below, right-click, and select “copy”. Paste the link into your website, email, or any other HTML document.

User Comments

30 days ago

christina

This was hard to understand at some points in the reading but in the end I got almost everything i needed. There were one or two questions i couldnt get answered because I couldnt find the answers to them. Other than that, good job.

2 months ago

wow

over 1 year ago

Rocky

I agree with Christina 100% !!

Brian, good point with Jefferson.

Also, KD is a dummy and, -spelling aside, his opinion doesn't matter.

about 2 years ago

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.

over 2 years ago

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."

almost 3 years ago

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.

almost 3 years ago

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 3 years ago

Who were the judges durring the case

almost 4 years ago

Thank you really great site! Incredibly Helpful!