The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic … The question in every case is whether the words are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.

Question

- from the Majority Opinion of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in Schenck vs United States (1919)

The Constitution of the United States protects the right to freedom of speech. According to the majority opinion offered from the case Schenck vs United States, how did the Supreme Court decide that the right of freedom of speech is not absolute?
Responses
A If the speech is symbolic in nature then it is not allowed.
If the speech is symbolic in nature then it is not allowed.
B If the speech creates a danger to the United States it is not allowed.
If the speech creates a danger to the United States it is not allowed.
C If the speech reflects negatively on someone’s character then it is not allowed.
If the speech reflects negatively on someone’s character then it is not allowed.
D If the speech exposes classified information from the United States then it is not allowed.
If the speech exposes classified information from the United States then it is not allowed.

Answer 1

The correct response is:

B If the speech creates a danger to the United States it is not allowed.

This aligns with Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' assertion in Schenck v. United States that speech is not absolute and can be limited if it creates a "clear and present danger" of bringing about substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.