Charles Schenck And The Espionage Act Of 1917

The Espionage Act of 1917 was strictly enforced, prohibiting interference with recruiting or enlistment into the military and ended with a punishment if the act was violated. In 1919, Charles Schenck, a general secretary of the socialist party, made pamphlets that were distributed to men who had been drafted into the armed forces. Schenck was charged with conspiracy that violated the Espionage Act of 1917. He made an argument that the Conscription Act violated the 13th Amendment of the US constitution, which was the amendment that made slavery unconstitutional. The pamphlet suggested that the draft was wrong against humanity and stated, “Do not submit to intimidation”, making it clear Schenck was pursuing peaceful measures to be taken into

Congress approved their right to prevent circumstances that could cause harm during a disturbance of danger, making the famous line “clear and present danger”, a question of proximity and degree, while also exhibiting how one’s speech can cause harm by disregarding the bounds of one’s free speech protection. However, Justice Holmes believed that Schenck did not violate the first amendment. Under various other circumstances Schenck’s actions would have been fine but the court responded with, “The character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done,” acknowledging the first amendment gives people the right to freedom of speech but has certain boundaries about what exactly you are allowed to express. The supreme court believed Schenck was causing harm to the government because the United States was at war. The government saw it as interference and a threat to the status quo of soldiers being drafted and sent to war. At that point in time a certainty of danger was occurring and they felt they needed to act upon

He knew if the society engaged in war, soldiers would be a necessity to the state. Socrates would not have wanted a citizen to go against his guardians, who were risking their lives protecting the state. His ideal of forbidden speech/literature is similar to the idea of clear and present danger. By limiting what type of speech is allowed in the state, these certain characteristics exhibited were favored by both the United States and Socrates. Therefore, the information available to citizens needed to be controlled by the state. The characteristics Schenck exhibited was a perceived threat to the government and in Socrates’ favor he believed the character of the citizens determined the character of the state as a whole. Knowing Socrates was against this type of behavior in his state, leads to the aspects of his view that what individuals see, read, and experience can have an affect on their character, thus making the argument only more credible to the court’s ruling of “clear and present danger” it would have caused in Socrates “perfect