The Clay v. US case is very similar to the Schenck v. US case because both were against the draft and going to war.
Schenck vs. US Summary: During WW1 sent things to draftees that suggested that the draft was a monstrous wrong motivated by capitalism. In order to repeal the draft, he urged people to use peaceful action such as petitions. Schenck was charged with conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act by attempting to cause defiance in the military and to stop recruitment. The question was, however, did the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment protect Schenck's actions? Speaking for a unanimous court, Holmes concluded that he was not protected in this situation. He explained this decision by saying that it depends on if the actions "create a clear and present danger" and bring about the "substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent". Which basically means that if the actions could create problems, in this case civil unrest or lack of a military, then Congress has the right to stop these actions from happening, especially in a time of war.
No comments:
Post a Comment