MPL3R2D8
The Hsinchu Wikimedia Community Writing Meeting is held on the first weekend of each month. Registration is welcome.
| [ Close ] |
Schenk v. United States case [ edit ]
| Shenke v. United States | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 | |||||||
| Debate: September 19, 19 to October 10 Judgment: March 1919 | |||||||
| The full name of the case | Charles T. Schenk v. United States of America | ||||||
| Citation number | 249 US 47
63 L. Ed. 470; 1919 US LEXIS 2223; 17 Ohio L. Rep. 26; 17 Ohio L. Rep. 149
| ||||||
| Past cases |
| ||||||
| Follow-up case | no | ||||||
| Court decision | |||||||
| The defendant’s criticism of the conscription was not protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, because it poses obvious and current dangers to the US military’s conscription . | |||||||
| Supreme Court Judge | |||||||
| |||||||
| Court opinion | |||||||
| Majority opinion | Holmes Joint name: All judges | ||||||
| Applicable law | |||||||
| US Code, Volume 50, Chapter 33 | |||||||
Overthrown
| |||||||
| Brandenburg v. Ohio , 395 US 444 (1969) | |||||||
The case of Shenke v. United States ( 249 US 47 (1919) ) was a case of the United States Supreme Court adjudicating the espionage law of 1917, in which the Supreme Court stated that the defendant was not entitled to invoke the remarks contained in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution . The right to freedom criticizes the U.S. government ’s conscription during World War I. In the end, the case established a clear and current standard of danger until its influence was gradually weakened in 1927, and restrictions on freedom of expression were eventually relaxed in the urgent standards of wrongful conduct made by the Supreme Court in 1969 .
table of Contents
[ hide ]- 1background
- 2Court decisions
- 3Follow-up legal theory
- 4See
- 5References
Background [ edit ]
Charles Schenck was when he was the American Socialist Party general secretary, in charge of the potential draftees printed, distributed, mailed flyers during the First World War, including 15,000 leaflets against the draft law. These flyers include "Do not submit to intimidation" and "Persist on your rights." "If you do not uphold and defend your rights, you are helping to deny or damage the rights of all citizens and residents of the United States with sacred obligations to protect them." Remarks, such as Shen Ke et al. The flyers also pointed out that conscription can be seen as forced labor, which was banned by the 13th Amendment .
Schenk was thus accused and convicted of violating the Espionage Act of 1917. Shen Kezhen appealed to the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth and held that the judgment of the local court violated the right of citizens to freedom of expression protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution .
Court decision [ edit ]
In the opinion of the court penned by Judge Holmes , the lower court's guilty verdict was constitutional. The First Amendment does not protect speeches that encourage the overthrow of the government. “When a country is in a state of war, many words that may be spoken in peacetime will cause great harm to the country’s war effort and cannot be tolerated. There are still fighters fighting, and there will not be a court that thinks they can be protected by any constitution.” This also shows that the court believes that these statements that are limited during the war will be allowed in peacetime.
In this court opinion, Holmes proposed his famous obvious and current dangerous standards.
- The most rigorous protection of freedom of speech does not protect a person from falsely shouting fire in theaters and causes panic. [...] In every case, the question is whether or not speech is used in such an environment. It is of such a nature that As for the obvious and current danger that has caused the great scourge that parliament has the power to stop .
The metaphor of "the theater fire" in this court's opinion also appeared in many subsequent judgments.
Shen Ke was finally sentenced to imprisonment for six months.
Follow-up legal theory [ edit ]
The "obvious and current danger" standard was eventually replaced by the more stringent " bad tendencies " standard in Whitney v. California. Judges Holmes and Luis Brandeis did not explicitly endorse the new standard, but they supported it. Whitney's guilty verdict. It has been argued that the "obvious and current danger" standard is actually just a "bad tendency" standard for re-wording.
With the suppression of speech during the Red Panic period and the public’s awakening to the war, Holmes tried to protect freedom of expression with the “clear and current danger” standard. He tried to clarify and narrow the situation that could limit freedom of speech. In that position, in Frohwerk v. United States and Debs v. United States that followed two similar cases, Holmes did not invoke "clear and present danger" standard.
See also [ edit ]
- Abrams v. United States , 250 US 616 (1919)
- Debussy v. United States , 249 US 211 (1919)
- Whitney v. California , 274 US 357 (1927)
- Dennis v. United States , 341 US 494 (1951)
- Brandenburg v. Ohio , 395 US 444 (1969)
References [ edit ]
Wikisource related Schenck v. United States of text
- Kutler, Stanley I. Translator: Zhu Zengwen, Lin Yi. Supreme Court and Constitution: Selected Readings of the Important Constitution of the United States Constitution. Commercial Press. 2006: Schenker v. United States. ISBN 7100046866 ( Simplified Chinese version, original English) .
- Qiu Xiaoping. “Freedom of Expression: A Study of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.” Peking University Press. 2005. ISBN 7301081650 (Chinese (Simplified)) .
2 categories :
- US Supreme Court Case
- Freedom of speech litigation
Comments
Post a Comment