Question

In the case Schenck v. U.S. (1919), the U.S. Supreme Court limited free speech during World War I. Mr. Schenck argued that the government violated his freedom of speech and that he should be allowed to hand out pamphlets to encourage people not to serve in the military. The Court concluded that the speech in his pamphlets created a ‘clear and present danger’ because men were needed to serve in the military during WWI and protect the country.



Which of the following questions best impacts why the U.S. Supreme Court determined in the above case there was a 'clear and present danger' and that Mr. Schenck's freedom of speech needed to be limited.


Will this act of speech create a dangerous situation?


Will this act of speech create a violent situation?


Is information about another person false, or does it make true information appear false?


Does this act threaten national security?

Answer 1

Will this act of speech create a dangerous situation?

Explanation: The Court applied Holmes’s "clear and present danger" test — asking whether the words, in their context, create a real and immediate danger (here, to the draft and the war effort). Options about violence, defamation, or a broader "national security" framing are narrower or less directly aligned with the constitutional test used.