...the case of Schenck vs. United States, I believe the government made the right decision. When America first entered WWI in 1917, Congress passed the Espionage Act, which stated that trying to interfere with the military draft or attempting to dissuade soldiers from fighting during wartime was now illegal. Schenck knowingly broke the law and in doing so could have caused turmoil to brew within a nation. Seeing as, the Supreme Court’s decision had no lasting consequences that hurt the country, and assisted in keeping the nation in relative order during the time, Schenck’s conviction was completely justified. Charles T. Schenck was the general secretary for the U.S. Socialist Party, which opposed the implementation of the military draft in the country. The party printed and distributed more than 15,000 pamphlets that called for men who were drafted to resist military service. The government at the time accused the pamphlets of trying to obstruct military recruitment and weaken the loyalty of soldiers. Schenck was soon after arrested for having violated the Espionage Act; he was convicted on three counts and sentenced to 10 years...
Words: 592 - Pages: 3
...Shouting "Fire!" by Alan M. Dershowitz ..... hen the Reverend Jerry Falwell learned that the Supreme Court had reversed his $200,000 judgment against Hustler magazine for the emotional distress that he had suffered from an outrageous parody, his response was typical of those who seek to censor speech: "Just as no person may scream 'Fire!' in a crowded theater when there is no fire, and find cover under the First Amendment, likewise, no sleazy merchant like Larry Flynt should be able to use the First Amendment as an excuse for maliciously and dishonestly attacking public figures, as he has so often done." Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes's classic example of unprotected speech—falsely shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater—has been invoked so often, by so many people, in such diverse contexts, that it has become part of our national folk language. It has even appeared—most appropriately—in the theater: in Tom Stoppard's play Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead a character shouts at the audience, "Fire!" He then quickly explains: "It's all right—I'm demonstrating the misuse of free speech." Shouting "Fire!" in the theater may well be the only jurisprudential analogy that has assumed the status of a folk argument. A prominent historian recently characterized it as "the most brilliantly persuasive expression that ever came from Holmes' pen." But in spite of its hallowed position in both the jurisprudence of the First Amendment and the arsenal of political discourse...
Words: 2139 - Pages: 9
...Shouting "Fire!" by Alan M. Dershowitz ..... When the Reverend Jerry Falwell learned that the Supreme Court had reversed his $200,000 judgment against Hustler magazine for the emotional distress that he had suffered from an outrageous parody, his response was typical of those who seek to censor speech: "Just as no person may scream 'Fire!' in a crowded theater when there is no fire, and find cover under the First Amendment, likewise, no sleazy merchant like Larry Flynt should be able to use the First Amendment as an excuse for maliciously and dishonestly attacking public figures, as he has so often done." Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes's classic example of unprotected speech—falsely shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater—has been invoked so often, by so many people, in such diverse contexts, that it has become part of our national folk language. It has even appeared—most appropriately—in the theater: in Tom Stoppard's play Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead a character shouts at the audience, "Fire!" He then quickly explains: "It's all right—I'm demonstrating the misuse of free speech." Shouting "Fire!" in the theater may well be the only jurisprudential analogy that has assumed the status of a folk argument. A prominent historian recently characterized it as "the most brilliantly persuasive expression that ever came from Holmes' pen." But in spite of its hallowed position in both the jurisprudence of the First Amendment and the arsenal of political discourse, it...
Words: 2139 - Pages: 9
