Question

In the case of Schenck v. United States the Supreme Court ruled that
the Espionage Act was unconstitutional.
Charles Schenck had been falsely accused.
speech aimed to potentially create danger could be banned.
the First Amendment had no limits.

Answer 1

Which are true/false:

1. "In the case of Schenck v. United States the Supreme Court ruled that the Espionage Act was unconstitutional." — False. The Court upheld the convictions under the Espionage Act; it did not declare the Act unconstitutional. (Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).)

2. "Charles Schenck had been falsely accused." — False. Schenck was prosecuted and convicted for distributing anti-draft leaflets; the Court affirmed his conviction. Whether someone is "falsely accused" is not how the decision is usually characterized.

3. "speech aimed to potentially create danger could be banned." — True (with qualification). The Court, in an opinion by Justice Holmes, announced the "clear and present danger" test: speech that presents a clear and present danger of bringing about substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent can be restricted.

4. "the First Amendment had no limits." — False. Schenck explicitly recognized limits on the First Amendment; free speech was not absolute.

(For context: the "clear and present danger" test from Schenck was later refined into the "imminent lawless action" standard in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).)