Final answer:
The Schenck and New York Times decisions clarified limitations and protections under the First Amendment, with Schenck emphasizing national security limitations and New York Times protecting against libel without showing actual malice. Both cases highlight the balance between freedom of expression and other competing societal interests.
Step-by-step explanation:
The decisions in Schenck v. United States and New York Times Co. v. Sullivan had a common theme regarding the limits and protections offered by the First Amendment's freedom of expression. In Schenck, the Supreme Court held that actions presenting a clear and present danger to national security, such as Schenck's anti-draft leaflets during wartime, were not protected by the First Amendment. On the other hand, in New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court protected the press against libel suits by public officials unless there was proof of actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth.
Both decisions had a significant impact on the interpretation of the First Amendment. They showed that while the government can sometimes limit speech or press, especially in times of war or if it relates to public figures, such limitations are scrutinized heavily to protect freedom of speech and freedom of the press. The rulings enforced the principle that free expression is fundamental, but not absolute, and can be subject to certain conditions for the greater public interest or national security.