-
Essay / Schenck v. United States (1919) - 427
Schenck v. United States (1919)Schenck v. United States (1919) Schenck v. In the United States, anti-war sentiment was particularly strong among socialists, German-Americans, and religious groups traditionally sympathetic to anti-violence. In response to this prospect, Congress passed the Espionage Act of 1917. This act provided for heavy fines and prison sentences for interfering in U.S. military operations or for causing or attempting to cause insubordination or disloyalty within the army. Additionally, the law made it illegal to obstruct recruiting efforts for the U.S. armed forces. Among the many Americans convicted of violating the Espionage Act was Charles Schenck, general secretary of the Socialist Party of the United States. In 1917, Schenck sent copies of a letter calling for resistance to military conscription to 15,000 men who had been drafted but not yet inducted into the U.S. Army. Schenck's letter claimed the bill violated the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, which abolished slavery and prohibited involuntary servitude. Schenck argued that forced enlistment in the military was a form of involuntary servitude and should therefore be prohibited. The letters also claimed that the companies had conspired to lead the United States into war, against the interests of average Americans. Schenck advised readers to assert their individual rights by opposing the bill, but he did not directly encourage violence or avoidance of the bills. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., issued a ruling that established guidelines for assessing the limits of free speech. In Schenck's case, the Court had to decide whether the First Amendment protected his words, even though it might have had the power to generate opposition to the project. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech." The Court concluded that because Schenck's speech was intended to incite opposition to the project, it was not protected by the First Amendment. Holmes examined the context of Schenck's speech as well as its intent. In his opinion, he created a new legal criterion: the criterion of clear and present danger; which aimed to identify cases where certain forms of speech were not protected by the First Amendment.