Final answer:
The cartoonist's views on free speech as it pertains to Schenck's actions would likely depend on whether those actions presented a 'clear and present danger,' a key standard for determining First Amendment protection.
Step-by-step explanation:
The issue of whether Schenck's actions are protected by freedom of speech under the First Amendment depends on whether his actions create a "clear and present danger", as established by the precedent set in the Supreme Court. This principle was famously illustrated by Justice Holmes's metaphor of not protecting "a man falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." In this regard, expressions that incite crime, cause harm, or constitute threats are typically not protected.
It can be inferred that the cartoonist may view free speech as a right that is generally protected, considering the references to examples where even offensive and insensitive speech was not censored by the government. However, the cartoonist's view on Schenck's specific actions would depend on whether they believe those actions constituted a clear and present danger or were merely an exercise of political speech.
The statement from figure 4.10 helps to underscore that while the Constitution protects most forms of unpopular or offensive expression, there are certain key restrictions. If Schenck's words were seen as an incitement of a criminal act, fighting words, or genuine threats, they would not be protected by free speech laws.