Answer:
Was based on the ruling that government can limit speech if the speech provokes a "clear and present danger" of substantive evils.
Step-by-step explanation:
The Supreme Court decision upholding the conviction of a socialist who had urged young men to resist the draft during World War I was based on the ruling that government can limit speech if the speech provokes a "clear and present danger" of substantive evils.
Schenck the socialist party secretary appealed the verdict of the lower court which found him guilty of espionage due to his speeches and leaflets discouraging draft age from drafting into military service during the first world war. The Supreme Court upheld the judgement of the lower court and the limit to what constitutes as freedom of speech was set by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court judge Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr ruled that government can limit speech if the speech provokes a "clear and present danger" of substantive evils. Schenck was sentenced for espionage.