Which US Supreme Court case established the 'clear and present danger' rule regarding threat to national security?

The landmark case Schenck v United States 249 U.S. 47 (1919) set a standard for determining reasonable restrictions on the First Amendment right to free speech based on whether the speech, written or spoken, constituted a "clear and present danger. " In this case, the danger was determined to be a risk to the United States' recruitment and conscription efforts during WW I, and in violation of the new 1917 Espionage Act; however, the concept has been used as a test in many cases through the years. The criteria for what constitutes unprotected speech was subsequently narrowed in Bradenburg v.

Ohio 395 US 444 (1969) when the Court upheld the First Amendment rights of the Ku Klux Klan Schenck v. United States is also the source of Holmes' famous quote about the First Amendment not protecting a person "shouting fire in a crowded theater Background: Charles T. Schenck, General Secretary of the Socialist Party, was convicted under the recently enacted Espionage Act of 1917 of attempting to interfere with the operation of the United States Armed Forces by urging men to resist the draft Schenck, in his capacity as an official of the Socialist Party, was in charge of the Socialist headquarters where the Executive Committee met.

According to meeting minutes found on the premises, the committee had issued a resolution on August 13, 1917 that 15,000 leaflets should be printed and distributed to men who had been drafted or were eligible for the draft Schenck undertook responsibility for printing and mailing the circulars, while his co-defendant, Dr. Elizabeth Baer (named in the full caption), had recorded the meeting minutes Quoting the 13th Amendment prohibition against slavery and involuntary servitude, the Socialists claimed the 1917 Conscription Act (draft) violated the Constitution, and said that a conscript (draftee) is "little better than a convict. " The pamphlet further claimed the draft was a "monstrous crime" against humanity, intended to benefit "Wall Street's chosen few. " The literature also said, "Do not submit to intimidation," and exhorted men to "Assert Your Rights," but advocated only peaceful means of protest, such as petitioning for repeal of the Conscription Act Both Schenck and Baer were convicted in District Court of violating the Espionage Act, and appealed directly to the US Supreme Court Schenck before the US Supreme Court In a brief prepared for the Court, Charles Schenck and Elizabeth Baer argued that "the fair test of protection by the constitutional guarantee of free speech is whether an expression is made with sincere purpose to communicate honest opinion or belief, or whether it masks a primary intent to incite to forbidden action, or whether it does, in fact, incite to forbidden action 1 Schenck further argued that his circular did not meet this standard because its clear intent was to persuade people to sign a petition urging Congress to repeal the Conscription Act, and did not recommend any action in violation of law The Justices and Schenck apparently disagreed about Schenck's intent Oliver Wendell Holmes, writing the unanimous opinion of the Court, concluded the pamphlet's intent was to influence drafted men to resist enlistment, which would obstruct the government's war effort.

Holmes acknowledged the circular would have been protected under the First Amendment during peace time, but that the United States' engagement with Germany in war changed the context The question in every case is whether the words used 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 the United States Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right Citing the Espionage Act of 1917, Holmes later stated.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.