Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case concerning enforcement of the Espionage Act of 1917 during World War I. A unanimous Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., concluded that defendants who distributed flyers to draft-age men urging resistance to induction could be convicted of an attempt to obstruct the draft, a criminal offense. The First Amendment did not alter the well-established law in cases where the attempt was made through expressions that would be protected in other circumstances. In this opinion, Holmes said that expressions which in the circumstances were intended to result in a crime, and posed a "clear and present danger" of succeeding, could be punished.

Property Value
dbo:abstract
  • Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case concerning enforcement of the Espionage Act of 1917 during World War I. A unanimous Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., concluded that defendants who distributed flyers to draft-age men urging resistance to induction could be convicted of an attempt to obstruct the draft, a criminal offense. The First Amendment did not alter the well-established law in cases where the attempt was made through expressions that would be protected in other circumstances. In this opinion, Holmes said that expressions which in the circumstances were intended to result in a crime, and posed a "clear and present danger" of succeeding, could be punished. The Court continued to follow this reasoning to uphold a series of convictions arising out of prosecutions during wartime, but Holmes began to dissent in the case of Abrams v. United States, insisting that the Court had departed from the standard he had crafted for them, and had begun to allow punishment for ideas. But the Court has set another line of precedents to govern cases in which the constitutionality of a statute is challenged on its face. (en)
  • Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (2020), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case concerning enforcement of the Espionage Act of 1917 during World War I. A unanimous Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., concluded that defendants who distributed flyers to draft-age men urging resistance to induction could be convicted of an attempt to obstruct the draft, a criminal offense. The First Amendment did not alter the well-established law in cases where the attempt was made through expressions that would be protected in other circumstances. In this opinion, Holmes said that expressions which in the circumstances were intended to result in a crime, and posed a "clear and present danger" of succeeding, could be punished. The Court continued to follow this reasoning to uphold a series of convictions arising out of prosecutions during wartime, but Holmes began to dissent in the case of Abrams v. United States, insisting that the Court had departed from the standard he had crafted for them, and had begun to allow punishment for ideas. But the Court has set another line of precedents to govern cases in which the constitutionality of a statute is challenged on its face. (en)
  • Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court concerning enforcement of the Espionage Act of 1917 during World War I. A unanimous Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., concluded that defendants who distributed flyers to draft-age men urging resistance to induction could be convicted of an attempt to obstruct the draft, a criminal offense. The First Amendment did not alter the well-established law in cases where the attempt was made through expressions that would be protected in other circumstances. In this opinion, Holmes said that expressions which in the circumstances were intended to result in a crime, and posed a "clear and present danger" of succeeding, could be punished. The Court continued to follow this reasoning to uphold a series of convictions arising out of prosecutions during wartime, but Holmes began to dissent in the case of Abrams v. United States, insisting that the Court had departed from the standard he had crafted for them, and had begun to allow punishment for ideas. But the Court has set another line of precedents to govern cases in which the constitutionality of a statute is challenged on its face. (en)
  • Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court concerning enforcement of the Espionage Act of 1917 during World War I. A unanimous Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., concluded that defendants who distributed flyers to draft-age men urging resistance to induction could be convicted of an attempt to obstruct the draft, a criminal offense. The First Amendment did not alter the well-established law in cases where the attempt was made through expressions that would be protected in other circumstances. In this opinion, Holmes said that expressions which in the circumstances were intended to result in a crime, and posed a "clear and present danger" of succeeding, could be punished. The Court continued to follow this reasoning to uphold a series of convictions arising out of prosecutions during wartime, but Holmes began to dissent in the case of Abrams v. United States, insisting that the Court had departed from the standard he had crafted for them, and had begun to allow punishment for ideas. However, the Court has set another line of precedents to govern cases in which the constitutionality of a statute is challenged on its face. In 1969, Schenck was partially overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot). (en)
dbo:thumbnail
dbo:wikiPageEditLink
dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
dbo:wikiPageExtracted
  • 2020-04-19 09:29:25Z (xsd:date)
  • 2020-04-30 19:20:04Z (xsd:date)
  • 2020-04-30 19:20:55Z (xsd:date)
  • 2020-04-30 19:22:07Z (xsd:date)
  • 2020-04-30 20:06:53Z (xsd:date)
  • 2020-06-15 15:34:16Z (xsd:date)
  • 2020-06-20 23:03:36Z (xsd:date)
  • 2020-11-08 16:29:01Z (xsd:date)
  • 2020-11-22 03:35:30Z (xsd:date)
  • 2020-11-22 11:25:22Z (xsd:date)
  • 2020-12-01 18:24:21Z (xsd:date)
  • 2020-12-15 03:02:42Z (xsd:date)
  • 2020-12-15 03:02:48Z (xsd:date)
  • 2020-12-15 03:02:54Z (xsd:date)
  • 2020-12-22 15:36:08Z (xsd:date)
  • 2020-12-28 10:09:00Z (xsd:date)
  • 2021-01-07 20:46:33Z (xsd:date)
  • 2021-01-07 21:01:05Z (xsd:date)
  • 2021-02-26 01:49:32Z (xsd:date)
  • 2021-03-02 04:00:19Z (xsd:date)
  • 2021-03-02 23:19:54Z (xsd:date)
  • 2021-04-20 01:30:07Z (xsd:date)
dbo:wikiPageHistoryLink
dbo:wikiPageID
  • 168894 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageLength
  • 19190 (xsd:integer)
  • 19213 (xsd:integer)
  • 19759 (xsd:integer)
  • 19767 (xsd:integer)
  • 19773 (xsd:integer)
  • 19783 (xsd:integer)
  • 19790 (xsd:integer)
  • 19798 (xsd:integer)
  • 19800 (xsd:integer)
  • 19801 (xsd:integer)
  • 19804 (xsd:integer)
  • 19824 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageModified
  • 2020-04-19 09:29:21Z (xsd:date)
  • 2020-04-30 19:20:52Z (xsd:date)
  • 2020-04-30 19:22:03Z (xsd:date)
  • 2020-04-30 20:06:49Z (xsd:date)
  • 2020-06-15 15:34:12Z (xsd:date)
  • 2020-06-20 23:03:30Z (xsd:date)
  • 2020-11-08 16:28:56Z (xsd:date)
  • 2020-11-22 03:35:24Z (xsd:date)
  • 2020-11-22 11:25:18Z (xsd:date)
  • 2020-12-01 18:24:12Z (xsd:date)
  • 2020-12-22 15:36:04Z (xsd:date)
  • 2020-12-28 10:08:54Z (xsd:date)
  • 2021-01-07 20:46:30Z (xsd:date)
  • 2021-01-07 21:01:00Z (xsd:date)
  • 2021-02-26 01:49:28Z (xsd:date)
  • 2021-03-02 04:00:10Z (xsd:date)
  • 2021-03-02 23:19:49Z (xsd:date)
  • 2021-04-20 01:30:01Z (xsd:date)
dbo:wikiPageOutDegree
  • 72 (xsd:integer)
  • 73 (xsd:integer)
  • 76 (xsd:integer)
  • 77 (xsd:integer)
  • 78 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
  • 951871764 (xsd:integer)
  • 954115249 (xsd:integer)
  • 954115490 (xsd:integer)
  • 954123019 (xsd:integer)
  • 962705003 (xsd:integer)
  • 963639001 (xsd:integer)
  • 987682741 (xsd:integer)
  • 989984472 (xsd:integer)
  • 990030310 (xsd:integer)
  • 991763647 (xsd:integer)
  • 995725368 (xsd:integer)
  • 996737463 (xsd:integer)
  • 998959470 (xsd:integer)
  • 998961811 (xsd:integer)
  • 1008975645 (xsd:integer)
  • 1009755498 (xsd:integer)
  • 1009917884 (xsd:integer)
  • 1018817250 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageRevisionLink
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
dct:subject
rdf:type
rdfs:comment
  • Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case concerning enforcement of the Espionage Act of 1917 during World War I. A unanimous Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., concluded that defendants who distributed flyers to draft-age men urging resistance to induction could be convicted of an attempt to obstruct the draft, a criminal offense. The First Amendment did not alter the well-established law in cases where the attempt was made through expressions that would be protected in other circumstances. In this opinion, Holmes said that expressions which in the circumstances were intended to result in a crime, and posed a "clear and present danger" of succeeding, could be punished. (en)
  • Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (2020), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case concerning enforcement of the Espionage Act of 1917 during World War I. A unanimous Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., concluded that defendants who distributed flyers to draft-age men urging resistance to induction could be convicted of an attempt to obstruct the draft, a criminal offense. The First Amendment did not alter the well-established law in cases where the attempt was made through expressions that would be protected in other circumstances. In this opinion, Holmes said that expressions which in the circumstances were intended to result in a crime, and posed a "clear and present danger" of succeeding, could be punished. (en)
  • Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court concerning enforcement of the Espionage Act of 1917 during World War I. A unanimous Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., concluded that defendants who distributed flyers to draft-age men urging resistance to induction could be convicted of an attempt to obstruct the draft, a criminal offense. The First Amendment did not alter the well-established law in cases where the attempt was made through expressions that would be protected in other circumstances. In this opinion, Holmes said that expressions which in the circumstances were intended to result in a crime, and posed a "clear and present danger" of succeeding, could be punished. (en)
rdfs:label
  • Schenck v. United States (en)
owl:sameAs
foaf:depiction
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
foaf:name
  • Charles T. Schenck v. United States, Elizabeth Baer v. United States (en)
  • (en)
  • Charles T. Schenc v. United States, Elizabeth Baer v. United States (en)
  • Charles T. Schenck, Elizabeth Baer (en)
is dbo:wikiPageDisambiguates of
is dbo:wikiPageRedirects of
is foaf:primaryTopic of