Violations in the Rulings of Schneck v. United States

The Schenck case in the early 1900s dealt with the freedom of speech as it related to the draft of World War I. Charles Schenck sent mass mail that stated “the draft was a monstrous wrong motivated by the capitalist system” (Schenck v. United States). The federal government found this to be in violation of the Clear and Present Danger Test as well as the Espionage Act and arrested Schenck for his actions. The case proceeded to the Supreme Court and was ruled in favor of the United States unanimously. The opinion of the court violates the free speech clause as well as a right to have peaceful protest by denying Schenck to share his opinions of the draft with others despite the opinion of the government on this action. Due to these violations the ruling on the Schneck v. United States case should be overturned in order to protect the right of free speech and protest to all citizens.
The ruling in Schneck v United States should be overturned because it violates the free speech clause. Under the free speech clause the government does not have the right to deny any persons the right to speak of their opinion of the government despite the severity of the subject at hand. In the Schenck case, the Supreme Court ruled that the United States government had the right to arrest Charles Schenck due to his actions. Because of his arrest, Schenck’s freedom of speech was violated when he was taken into custody for mailing out his opinion and advice on the draft. Because Schneck was a United States citizen the government had no right to prosecute him for exercising his free speech. Under the free speech clause Schneck should not have been incarcerated by the U.S. government for simply exercising his freedom of speech.
Counter to the claim abov...

... middle of paper ...

...he may have hindered the war efforts in America, he did not cause any harm to the nation or anyone else’s civil rights and liberties. Because Schneck was accused of committing a crime by peacefully protesting and exercising his freedom of speech, the court has set an unsaid standard of what is appropriate to say and what is not. This unsaid standard in itself violates the first amendment and is reason for the case ruling to be overturned. By overturning the case citizens will once again have full freedom of speech. Schneck did not violate the clear and present danger test or the Espionage Act as he was said to. Instead, he simply advocated his cause with peaceful protest and by using his right to free speech. Because he was not harming anyone or violation in ruling, the case should then be overturned on the account of the innocence and lawfulness of Charles Schneck.