Schenck v.

United States

FACTS:

Schenck mailed circulars to Army draftees during the First World War. The
circulars were essentially meant to persuade the draftees to view the war as
a moralyl wrong, instigated by the leaders of a global capitalist system. The
circulars were alleged to have been incendiary because they compelled
draftees to not submit to intimidation" by acting peacefully outside of the
war rather than in the war, and by petitioning to end/repeal the Conscription
Act that made drafting legally permissible. Schenck was consequently
charged with conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act on the grounds that he
actively attempted to compel draftees to be insubordinate, particularly
during wartime, and as a result also attempted to obstruct the military from
recruiting necessary personnel for the First World War.

ISSUES:

The legal question presented was whether Schencks actions, i.e. his words
and overall expression, was protected by the free speech clause of the First
Amendment or whether it was not protected, with the implicit argument
being that there are different First Amendment rules to be observed during
wartime.

HOLDING:

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Schencks words and his
expressions in this case were not protected, and thus his 1st Amendment
rights to freedom of speech and expression had not been violated.

MAJORITY OPINION:

Associate Justice Holmes wrote the Courts opinion, which reasoned that
Schenck was not protected because the circumstances (wartime) were so
severe and critical to the state of the country that his words effectively
presented a clear and present danger" to the war effort, something that the
U.S. Congress had the authority and onus to prevent. The Court thus
concluded that typical peacetime actions and expressions that would be fine
when there is no war or conflict must to some degree(s) be scaled back
during wartime.

CONCLUSION:
This case was important because it provided a distinction (one of several
ultimately made by the U.S. Supreme Court) that freedom of speech and
expression is not an absolute right; there are parameters and limitations to
what individuals can express. In this case, speech that works to subject the
country to a clear and present danger" is not permitted by the Constitution,
with the implicit argument being that Schencks expression in particular was
anathema to national security and therefore problematic for a country trying
to protect its Constitution by presenting an effective war effort founded upon
sufficient troop levels.