Question

Story attached

How does paragraph 2 develop a central idea of Passage 1?
A. It shows that the Socialist Party opposed the U.S. entry into World War I.
B. It suggests that citizens of the United States are obligated to protect their rights.
C. It offers evidence that Schenck and Baer acted against the U.S. war effort.
D. It proves Schenck and Baer's claim that the draft violated the Thirteenth Amendment.

Answer 1

Passage 1: Schenck v. United States


1 In June 1917, shortly after the United States became involved in World War I, Congress passed the Espionage Act. The act made it illegal to “willfully cause or attempt to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States.” In addition, the Espionage Act made it illegal to “promote the success” of enemies of the United States.

2 At the time, Charles T. Schenck and Elizabeth Baer were active members of the United States Socialist Party, which opposed the entry of the United States into the war, saying that the war was motivated by capitalist greed. They were also against the idea of a military draft. As part of their antiwar efforts, Schenck and Baer distributed 15,000 leaflets declaring that men who were drafted had the right to resist military service. The heading of the leaflet read “Long Live the Constitution of the United States; Wake Up America! Your Liberties Are in Danger!” The leaflet quoted the Thirteenth Amendment, which had made slavery and involuntary servitude illegal. The leaflet stated that the draft was the same thing as involuntary servitude. The leaflet also addressed conscripts, claiming that, “If you do not support your rights, you are helping to ‘deny or disparage rights’ which it is the solemn duty of all citizens and residents of the United States to retain.”

3 Schenck and Baer were arrested and charged for conspiring to violate the Espionage Act. After a jury trial, they were found guilty and sentenced to prison. They appealed their convictions and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court. Their lawyers claimed that the Espionage Act was unconstitutional because it was a violation of the First Amendment, which guarantees the right to free speech.

4 On March 3, 1919, the Supreme Court was unanimous in its decision to uphold the convictions of Schenck and Baer. Writing for the court, Oliver Wendell Holmes said that the First Amendment does not protect speech that threatens to create “a clear and present danger” of a serious evil that Congress has the power to prevent. The Court held that “the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done.” That is why it is permissible to shout “Fire!” in a quiet park or in a home, but falsely shouting it in a crowded theater could cause panic. In the same way, when Schenck distributed his leaflets, he was encouraging insubordination during wartime. If he had distributed them during peacetime, the action would have been seen as harmless free speech, but during wartime it was different.

“Schenck v. United States” written for educational purposes.


Passage 2: Oliver Wendell Holmes’s Opinion


5 The right to free speech has been a foundation of our democracy in the United States, so important that it is guaranteed in the First Amendment to the Constitution. But even this fundamental American right has its limits, which was true when Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote the Supreme Court decision in Schenck v. United States. When Charles Schenck claimed that he had every right to encourage draft resistance during World War I, Holmes and the rest of the Supreme Court pushed back and said no. What was the reasoning behind this decision?

6 The Espionage Act of 1917 made it illegal to undermine the war effort. At the time, the United States had joined World War I, and was actively recruiting military personnel to fight in the war. Obviously, Schenck’s call for men to resist the draft had the potential to cause harm to the United States. If every man who was drafted into the armed forces decided to stay home instead, the country would have no hope of winning the war. Holmes’s opinion stated that “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.” In other words, the circumstances of the country at the time affected the right to free speech. If someone’s words created a “clear and present danger” to the country, the First Amendment would not protect the speaker from prosecution. And it was clear that Schenck’s attitude presented such a danger.

7 The decision that went against Schenck made clear that the free speech rights that are guaranteed by the First Amendment do have limits, despite their very generous allowances. These limits are determined by the context in which they are used. But the law is ever-evolving. Fifty years after the Schenck decision, the “clear and present danger” criterion was replaced by the “imminent lawless action” phrase. In 1969, the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio established that the government may put limits on free speech only if it incites illegal activity sooner than the police can arrive to prevent such activity. Even though this decision protects a broader range of speech than is protected by Schenck v. United States, it is clear that Holmes’s opinion was on the right track.

“Oliver Wendell Holmes’s Opinion” written for educational purposes.