(A) limited the powers of the president
(B) ** placed limits on freedom of speech
(C) clarified standards for a fair trial
(D) expanded the rights of persons accused of crimes
EXPLANATIONS BELOW
Concept note-1: -The Court ruled in Schenck v. United States (1919) that speech creating a “clear and present danger” is not protected under the First Amendment. This decision shows how the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the First Amendment sometimes sacrifices individual freedoms in order to preserve social order.
Concept note-2: -United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919) If speech is intended to result in a crime, and there is a clear and present danger that it actually will result in a crime, the First Amendment does not protect the speaker from government action.
Concept note-3: -The ruling established that Congress has more latitude in limiting speech in times of war than in peacetime and set out the clear and present danger test, in which Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
Concept note-4: -In Schenck v. United States, Charles Schenck was charged under the Espionage Act for mailing printed circulars critical of the military draft. Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes upheld Schenck’s conviction and ruled that the Espionage Act did not conflict with the First Amendment.
Concept note-5: -The Court ruled that freedom of speech and freedom of the press under the First Amendment could be limited only if the words in the circumstances created “a clear and present danger.” Bluebook Citation: Schenck v.