The Supreme Court in Whitney v. California clarified clear and present danger to mean (Points : 1)
speech so dangerous that society would immediately and irreparably harmed.
speech that protested against the Supreme Court.
free speech would only be dangerous if it was followed by physical acts of violence.
that only speech concerning communism was dangerous.
speech so dangerous that society would immediately and irreparably harmed.
I agree.
To determine the correct answer, let's break down the given options and use the analytical method:
Option 1 suggests that the Supreme Court clarified "clear and present danger" to mean speech so dangerous that society would immediately and irreparably harmed. This option implies that the Court expanded the definition of "clear and present danger" beyond the original context.
Option 2 suggests that the Supreme Court clarified "clear and present danger" to mean speech that protested against the Supreme Court. This option implies that the Court narrowly defined "clear and present danger" to only apply in cases of protest against the Supreme Court.
Option 3 suggests that the Supreme Court clarified "clear and present danger" to mean that free speech would only be dangerous if it was followed by physical acts of violence. This option implies that the Court narrowed the definition of "clear and present danger" to exclude speech that does not lead to physical violence.
Option 4 suggests that the Supreme Court clarified "clear and present danger" to mean that only speech concerning communism was dangerous. This option implies that the Court limited the definition of "clear and present danger" to only apply to communist speech.
Based on the provided options, the correct answer is not clear. However, the correct answer to the question is actually none of the options listed.
In the case of Whitney v. California, the Supreme Court did not clarify "clear and present danger" to mean any of the options provided. Instead, the Court upheld the conviction of Anita Whitney, who was charged with violating California's Criminal Syndicalism Act by organizing the Communist Labor Party. The Court did so without clearly redefining "clear and present danger" but acknowledged that speech advocating for the violent overthrow of the government could be restricted under certain circumstances.
Therefore, the correct answer is not provided among the options given, as the Supreme Court did not specifically state that "clear and present danger" meant any of those options. It is important to review historical cases and court opinions to accurately determine the meaning and context of legal concepts.