Schenck v US (Free Speech)

1. What was Justice Holmes’ main argument  in the Court’s opinion in Schenck? Do you agree with the Court’s opinion?   
Justice Holmes' main argument in the Court's opinion in Schenck was that the leaflets Schenck was handing out could've potentially caused a dangerous situation in the country involving panic and distress within the people. Holmes claimed that if the country were in a state of peace, the first amendment may have protected Schenck's right to free speech. But because the country was in a state of war, Holmes claimed that congress had the right to prevent Schenck from distributing leaflets that they believed could severely hurt support of the war within America. No, I do not agree with the court's decision to say Schenck's leaflets weren't under the protection of the right to free speech. No matter the situation, every citizen in the U.S. has the right to free speech. If that depends on the state of the country, such should be indicated in the Constitution within the first amendment itself. 
2. Do you think some limits on the freedom of speech are necessary? Explain. (Use your own opinion and support it using information from the reading.)     
No, I do not think some limits on the freedom of speech are necessary. This is because although there are situations such as Schenck's, where his "speech" threatened moral support of America's participation in the war, people should be allowed to say, write, publish, etc., whatever they want. The government has no right to persecute people for their opinions, whether they pose a threat or not. American supposedly stands on its value of freedom, so limiting the freedom  of speech of citizens because it is inconvenient is never a necessary action. Holmes also made a great point when he said that a free exchange of ideas was necessary in order for truth to win out in the intellectual marketplace; if speech is limited because it's potentially dangerous, which the truth can also be sometimes, then the government will ultimately, albeit indirectly, be gradually encouraging the success of spurious ideas and hyperboles in the intellectual marketplace that Holmes speaks of. 

3. List three examples of the "historical impact" of the Schenck decision. 

1. Prosecution of supporters of Communism and draft resistance: Controversy of when free speech needs to be limited occurred again when there was protest during the Vietnam war, and the Supreme Court was again pressed with these issues. 
2. Tinker vs. Des Moines School District: The question about whether young people are protected by the first amendment popped up when students wore arm bands to protest the war, and he court had to order the readmission of these students. 
3. Texas vs. Johnson: Court invalidated a law concerning the physical desecration of the American flag, and determined if that was an act of free speech. An uproar of outrage followed, and Congress considering the passing of an amendment preventing such desecration, but it did not get passed.