Schenck v. United States

Last week during the legal realism presentation we got into a debate about the Supreme Court case, Schenck v. United States. It was stated that the case was basically a waste of time and that the defendant should have not been prosecuted since he was only distributed “15,000 leaflets”. This small amount was not enough to have a powerful affect. I think this to be true, but I also belief that for the fact that this was during a time of war, the circumstances were different. It does not matter that Schenck was not making a large impact with this distribution. It does matter that the criticism of the daft was during a time that could provide a threat. I think that this case needed to be ruled the way that it was in order to make precedent. This case was compared to someone “shouting fire in a crowded theater” because free speech does not protect this comment either. The most important aspect about this case is that the social effects are what established the ruling. If this had taken place during a time of peace then his First Amendments would have probably been protected. Something else that came from this case was the aspect of “clear and present danger”, which is a fundamental rule in determining how far free speech can be stretched. This way people will not be able to abuse their first amendment rights when it comes to encouraging insubordination. So, I believe that this case is very important in our history and provides a basis for other cases involving the First Amendment.