Schenk v United States

The Facts:
Charles Schenk was the general secretary of the Socialist Party of America. He protested the Espionage Act (follow this link to learn more) by mailing leaflets to citizens of the United States about opposing the draft.He was brought in front of the Supreme Court in 1919. (for more general info: follow this link)

The Question:
These are the main issues that this case brings up.
Is the Espionage Act constitutional? Does it violate the 1st Amendment’s free speech section? Should there be different allowances for free speech in times of peace or war?
The plaintiff, of course, argues that the act violated the 1st Amendment because it directly allows for free speech. The Socialists believed the war was immoral, and they should be allowed to protest in order to prevent the “tyranny of the majority”. (click here for more general info on the case)

The Path to the Supreme Court:
This began in Philadelphia when Schenk and four others were arrested on charges of obstructing the draft. Three are acquitted during the trial, but Schenk and Elizabeth Baer are found guilty. Schenk appeals to the Supreme Court.

The Court:
Chief Justice: Edward D. White (D)
Associate Justices: Joseph McKenna (R), Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (R), William Day (R), Willis van Devanter (R), Mahlon Pitney (R), James McReynolds (D), Louis Brandeis (Indedpendent), John Clarke (D)
White appointed by Roosevelt, all Republicans appointed by Taft, and McReynolds, Brandeis, and Clarke appointed by Wilson

The Outcome:
Unanimous opinion (9-0)
Schenk’s speech was not protected by 1st Admendment and Espionage Act is upheld.
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. wrote the opinion for the court from which two of his most famous quotes originate:

We admit that in many places and in ordinary times the defendants in saying all that was said . . . would have been within their constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.

The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring abou the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.

Evaluation:
I agree with this decision. Schenk did present a “clear and present danger” to American society, and it was right for him to spend time in jail. (click here for more info on the case and Schenk’s conviction). He spent ten years in jail because although he had three counts of ten years against him, he was able to serve time for those counts all at once.