Which case introduced the 'clear and present danger' standard for speech?

Which case introduced the 'clear and present danger' standard for speech?

• A. Schenck v. United States
• B. Katz v. United States
• C. Buckley v. Valeo
• D. Kelo v. City of New London

Answer: (A)

The standard being tested is that speech can be restricted when it creates a clear and present danger of significant harm. In Schenck v. United States (1919), the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Charles Schenck for distributing anti-draft leaflets during World War I, saying that such speech could be punished because it posed a clear and present danger to the war effort. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. popularized the idea with the famous example that the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. This established the clear and present danger test as the measure of when government action to curb speech is permissible. For broader context, later developments, such as Brandenburg v. Ohio, moved away from this exact standard by focusing on incitement to imminent unlawful action. The other figures listed tackle different constitutional issues—privacy and surveillance (Katz), campaign finance and spending (Buckley), and eminent domain (Kelo)—not speech restrictions under the First Amendment.

The standard being tested is that speech can be restricted when it creates a clear and present danger of significant harm. In Schenck v. United States (1919), the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Charles Schenck for distributing anti-draft leaflets during World War I, saying that such speech could be punished because it posed a clear and present danger to the war effort. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. popularized the idea with the famous example that the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. This established the clear and present danger test as the measure of when government action to curb speech is permissible. For broader context, later developments, such as Brandenburg v. Ohio, moved away from this exact standard by focusing on incitement to imminent unlawful action. The other figures listed tackle different constitutional issues—privacy and surveillance (Katz), campaign finance and spending (Buckley), and eminent domain (Kelo)—not speech restrictions under the First Amendment.