In the Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States, the court ruled that sometimes speech can be punished. Schenk's words were found to be illegal due to which of the following circumstances.
A. Schenck was a foreigner.
B. Schenck's words supported the Communist Party.
C. Schenck's words were a clear and present danger.
D. Schenck's was insulting a government official.
(please help me)
plz help
In the Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States, the court ruled that sometimes speech can be punished if it falls under certain circumstances. To determine which circumstance led to Schenck's words being found illegal, let's analyze each option:
A. Schenck being a foreigner: Being a foreigner alone does not make someone's speech illegal. The legality of speech is determined by the content and context of the speech rather than the speaker's nationality. Therefore, option A is unlikely to be the correct answer.
B. Schenck's words supporting the Communist Party: Although supporting a particular political party, such as the Communist Party, in itself is not illegal, during the time of the Schenck case (1919), there was a great deal of fear and suspicion towards communism. However, while Schenck's support for the Communist Party may have been a factor, it was not the main factor that led to the ruling in the case. Therefore, option B is not the correct answer.
C. Schenck's words being a clear and present danger: This is the correct answer. The court ruled that Schenck's words posed a clear and present danger to the United States during a time of war. In his case, Schenck was distributing pamphlets urging men to resist the draft for World War I. The court held that this speech created a clear and present danger by obstructing the military recruitment effort. This ruling established the "clear and present danger" test, which sets a standard for when speech can be restricted based on its potential harm to society.
D. Schenck insulting a government official: Although insulting a government official may not be well-regarded or socially acceptable, it does not necessarily make the speech illegal under the circumstances. The ruling in Schenck v. United States was primarily based on the "clear and present danger" test rather than insults towards government officials. Therefore, option D is not the correct answer.
To answer the question, the correct answer is C. Schenck's words were found illegal because they were considered to be a clear and present danger to the United States.
Use Google and search for “ Schenck v. United States”
Then read lots of the results until you learn what you need.