Schenck+v.+United+States

The Ruling:
The justices ruled unanimously that Schenck's right to free speech was denied. When speaking for the justices, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. said that the freedom of speech has its limits. He also said that what may be considered free speech in peacetime may not be seen as protected by the first amendment in war time. He used the "**clear and present danger**" rule to detect what was protected by freedom of speech and was not. This rule meant that when something was said with a "clear and present danger" to national interest, which in this case was World War I, then the right to the first amendment would be taken away. Justice Holmes however, did admit that "in many places and in ordinary times", Shenck would have had the right to say everything that he said in his pamphlets. It was just the circumstances that brought them to this final ruling.

"The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."

(Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.)

As a result of the 9-0 decision Charles Schenck spent six months in prison. After his sentence was up, he was found dead in his home, authorities assume an overdose of pain reducers

The Outcome:
Judges and juries were still able to view the Espionage and Sedition Acts broadly because "clear and present danger" could mean different things for different people. The ruling brought into question something that has been asked many a time in history: Whether or not it is right for the government to take away civil liberties during wartime. John Adams limited civil liberties with the Alien and Sedition Acts and Abraham Lincoln did it when suspended the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War.

During World War I, the Espionage and Sedition Acts was the act that limited civil liberties in the hope to keep war efforts safe. When the Supreme Court voted that these acts were constitutional, what it really meant was that it was constitutional for the government to limit civil liberties, in this case the First Amendment, during times of war in order to support the war.

After the ruling, the "clear and present danger" rule was used to determine whether or not a person's freedom of speech had been violated in wartime. Later on, in the ruling of //Brandenburg v. Ohio// the rule was changed to say that the only way it would not be a violation of the first amendment was if the person said something in order to purposely create illegal actions to occur. Historians always question whether or not the government has the right to limit civil liberties in times of war, but this Supreme Court ruling helped to prove that the United States government legally has the right. The question is still being asked today during the War in Iraq when during the presidency of George W. Bush the Patriot Act was created. This ruling, although limited by later rulings, is still in effect in America today.

[]
 * External Link:**

//The American Nation// by John A. Garraty and Mark C. Carnes [] [] []
 * Sources:**