Final answer:
In Schenck v. United States (1919), the Supreme Court ruled that Charles Schenck's distribution of anti-draft literature during World War I was not protected by the First Amendment. The Court introduced the 'clear and present danger' test, which limits free speech that poses a significant risk to national security. This aligns with the Espionage Act's regulations against obstructing military recruitment and promoting insubordination during wartime.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question at hand is whether Charles Schenck's actions, involving words and expression, are protected by the free speech clause of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court's unanimous decision in the Schenck v. United States case, which took place in 1919, was that Schenck's distribution of anti-draft literature during World War I was not protected under the First Amendment. This conclusion was based on the introduction of the "clear and present danger" test, which determines that speech is not protected if it creates a significant risk of inciting harm or violence.
Schenck had mailed circulars urging draftees to resist the draft, which the Court found to be an obstruction to the military recruitment process, and therefore, a violation of the Espionage Act. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote that while the First Amendment provided certain protections, it did not extend to speech that posed a clear and present danger to the nation's security. This ruling effectively limited First Amendment rights when national safety is at risk.