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 about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.
–Schenck v. United States
Use the excerpt to answer the question.
3. In this excerpt, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes explains his ruling in Schenck v. United States. What argument is Holmes making about personal rights and free speech? (1 point)
The constitutional protection of free speech is absolute, and each person has a right to express his or herself however he or she wishes.
The government has the authority to prohibit or limit free speech whenever it wants and for any reason.
The protection of free speech is important, but there are some cases in which personal expression is irresponsible and can be banned.
The public has the responsibility to decide when people are abusing their right to free speech.
1) C
2) A
3) B
4) D
5) B
6) C
7) D
8) A, D, E
9) A, C
10) A
11) C
12) A, D
13) B
14) C
15) B
16) B
17) A, C, E
100%
Parrot is 100% correct
Parrot is 100% correct THANK YOU FAM😁😁😁
Parrot is 100% correct!!
In this excerpt, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes is making an argument about personal rights and free speech. He states that the question at hand is whether the words used create a clear and present danger of bringing about substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.
To answer the question, we can infer that Holmes is making the argument that the protection of free speech is important, but there are some cases in which personal expression is irresponsible and can be banned. He is suggesting that there are limits to free speech when it poses a clear and present danger that can bring about substantive evils, which Congress has the authority to prevent.
That's your assignment.
What don't you understand about your assignment?