Question

To what extent did Schenck’s words imply a direct threat to the war effort or pose a safety risk to the US?

a) No threat
b) Minor threat
c) Significant threat
d) Unprecedented threat

Answer 1

The Supreme Court in Schenck v. United States ruled that Charles Schenck's anti-draft expressions were not protected by the First Amendment due to the "clear and present danger" they posed to the war effort, thereby constituting a significant threat.

Step-by-step explanation:

The case of Schenck v. United States established the “clear and present danger” test, which evaluates whether an individual's speech presents a significant threat to national security or public safety. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote that the First Amendment does not protect expressions that create a clear and present danger of bringing about substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. In this case, Charles Schenck's actions of distributing literature that discouraged draft enlistment during World War I were deemed to pose a significant threat, as they had the potential to disrupt the war effort and were not protected under the First Amendment.

During times of war, the Court held that certain forms of speech might be forbidden if they could harm the nation or its military forces. The unanimous Supreme Court decision conveyed that, while peacetime utterances might be tolerable, wartime circumstances necessitate stricter limitations on speech to safeguard national security.