Final answer:
Schenck's actions during wartime, which aimed to obstruct the draft, were not protected by the First Amendment as they posed a clear and present danger. The Supreme Court has established limits on free speech, including cases of defamation, obscenity, incitement, and threats. Context is crucial in determining the extent of protection offered by free speech rights.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question revolves around whether Schenck's actions are protected by the First Amendment or not. According to the Supreme Court decision in Schenck v. United States (1919), freedom of speech has its limitations. Specifically, actions or words that constitute a clear and present danger to public safety or national security are not protected.
Justice Holmes stated that during times of war, certain expressions that might be tolerable in peacetime could be punished. Therefore, speech that is likely to incite lawless action or undermines the war effort, as Schenck's did by obstructing the draft, can legally be restricted by the government. In essence, though freedom of expression is a fundamental right, it does not cover actions that put others in danger or disrupt public order.
'
Aside from clear and present danger, speech like obscenity, defamation, incitement, and threats are also not protected by the First Amendment. It's worth noting that after the Gitlow v. New York case in 1925, these restrictions apply both to federal and state governments through the Fourteenth Amendment. Hence, not all speech, including what might be considered treasonous acts, is covered by the First Amendment, and context matters greatly in determining the boundaries of free speech.