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 just because of the time and circumstances, the first amendment was not able to protect his free speech like it normally would. Schenck had the right to express his opinion and try to spread his beliefs but because the United States was so caught up in the frenzy of the ongoing war, they took it to be more of an offense than it might have usually been seen as. I agree with the Court's opinion somewhat. At first as i was reading, i didn't but then i read further and the whole analogy that Justice Holmes made, made me rethink. It's almost like the boy who cried wolf, and in desperate times people tend to overreact a little.
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.)
I don't think limits are necessary on freedom of speech. Of course they'd be nice, and these limits could probably solve a lot of problems before they happened (like in the case of Schenck), however this country was based on the moral that everyone would be free, which is why i think freedom of speech is crucial in it's purest form, without restrictions.
3. List three examples of the "historical impact" of the Schenck decision.
First of all, this decision led to the court being asked to decide whether or not young, school children should have the same freedom of speech right as adults. The court then decided that they should, and a whole bunch of students were readmitted to schools, after being punished for their words when they didn't get their full rights. Next, it caused a lot of arguments to start on what should be considered your right with freedom of speech, and to what extent you can express your opinion.
No comments:
Post a Comment