Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

Schenck v. United States (1919)

Read a random definition: colegatee

A quick definition of Schenck v. United States (1919):

Schenck v. United States was a court case in 1919 where the Supreme Court decided that the Espionage Act of 1917, which made it illegal to interfere with the U.S. military efforts, was constitutional. The defendant, Schenck, was convicted for mailing pamphlets that criticized the draft and the U.S. war effort. The Court ruled that freedom of speech and freedom of the press could be limited if the words created a "clear and present danger." This meant that in certain circumstances, like during a war, the government could limit free speech to protect the country. However, in later cases, the Court made it harder for the government to limit free speech.

A more thorough explanation:

Schenck v. United States is a U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld the constitutionality of the Espionage Act of 1917. 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."

For example, during World War I, Schenck mailed pamphlets to individuals enlisted in the draft that criticized the draft and the U.S. war effort. He was convicted for violating the Espionage Act of 1917 and appealed his conviction, arguing that the Act violated the First Amendment's protection of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. However, the Court ruled that the Act did not violate the First Amendment because Schenck's actions presented a clear and present danger to the United States' war efforts.

Subsequent to Schenck v. United States, the Supreme Court developed the Brandenburg Test, which only allows a law to limit speech if it incites imminent unlawful action.

Schedule | School District of Abington Township, Pennsylvania v. Schempp (1963)

Warning

Info

General

General chat about the legal profession.
main_chatroom
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
MIAMI A
[] AromaticTroubledDormouse
20:55
How does one know if they are UR1 or UR2?
[] AromaticTroubledDormouse
20:56
CONGRATS MACAQUE!
TY
got a random stanford email and almost had a heart attack
ALSO CONGRATS!
Congrats1!
21:15
Miami A, yall I'm so excited I could cry.
21:15
Feel like I can finally stop holding my breath!! Whew!!!
[] baddestbunny
22:16
every time I get accosted by a strange man who follows me around because my male coworkers were too busy talking to walk me back to my car I get closer to saying we need to bring back traditional gender roles
Dkk
22:32
Nice! @Macaque
Dkk
22:32
@Aromatic, Have to guess.
Dkk
22:33
That sucks @Bunny do you have to go to the hospital?
[] baddestbunny
22:40
I said accosted not assaulted
23:35
guys. my notre dame address just went long is this good or bad
1a2b3c4d26z
23:37
Oooooo me too
23:37
omg is this good or bad
Dkk
23:47
Idk if gender roles are gunna fix that then.
23:49
it looks like most people who applied in october last cycle didn't get a decision until january... does it even mean anything that our addresses went long??
hows ED 2 compared to ED 1?
Dkk
0:10
No idea
windyMagician
0:34
reporting live to say my ndls address also went long
does it mean anything ^
Dkk
2:21
NDLS and Fordham took a very long time last year. It's good info for people to know.
[] baddestbunny
4:29
let’s get after it boys and girls
Dkk
5:21
I gtg to bed soon.
Dkk
5:22
Big day today. Gunna be a crazy one. I will sleep through the first half.
good morning lsd it is 5 am EST
also jazzy my ndls address went long ages ago i sadly do not think it means anything
my stanford address also went long LOL i think at most it's an indicator it's under review
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.