"Clear and Present Danger": Free Speech in Wartime

Target: I can explain how the U.S. government limited free speech during World War I by comparing the Sedition Act to the Supreme Court ruling in Schenck v. United States.

Key Vocabulary

• Sedition Act of 1918: A law passed during World War I that made it a crime to say or write anything "disloyal" or "abusive" about the U.S. government, flag, or military.

• Espionage Act: The original law that punished spies, but was expanded by the Sedition Act to punish Americans who criticized the war.

• Charles Schenck: A Socialist who was arrested for mailing pamphlets telling men to resist the military draft. He argued he had "Freedom of Speech."

• "Clear and Present Danger": The Supreme Court's rule that free speech can be taken away if your words create a dangerous situation (like shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater).

Part 1: Do Now (5 minutes)

Directions: Read the prompt below and write a 5-8 sentence response.

Prompt: Imagine you are in a crowded movie theater. It is packed with people. Suddenly, as a joke, you stand up and scream "FIRE! FIRE!" Everyone panics and runs to the exits, and people get hurt in the stampede. Should you be arrested for what you said? Or should you be protected because you have "Freedom of Speech" to say whatever you want?

Sentence Starter: I think I (should/should not) be arrested because... Although I have freedom of speech, my words caused...

Part 2: Analyzing the Sources

Directions: Analyze the two documents below and then answer the questions that follow.

Source 1: The Sedition Act of 1918

Context: During WWI, the government wanted to stop anyone from criticizing the war effort. This law made it a crime to speak against the government.

Original Text

Simplified Text

"Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military... or shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States, or the Constitution... or the flag of the United States... shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both."

"When the U.S. is at war, anyone who tells lies to hurt the military's success... or anyone who says, prints, or writes any disloyal or abusive language about the U.S. Government, the Constitution, or the Flag... will be punished with a fine of up to $10,000 or up to 20 years in prison."

Source 2: Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Schenck v. United States (1919)

Context: Charles Schenck was arrested for violating the Sedition Act. He appealed to the Supreme Court, saying the law violated the First Amendment. The Court ruled against him.

Original Text

Simplified Text

"We admit that in many places and in ordinary times the defendants in saying all that was said in the circular would have been within their constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done... The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic... The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."

"We admit that in normal times, Schenck would have had the right to say these things. But it depends on the situation... Even the strongest protection of free speech would not protect a man who falsely shouts 'Fire!' in a theater and causes a panic.. The question is: Do the words create a 'Clear and Present Danger'? If your words create a dangerous situation that Congress has a right to stop (like stopping the draft during a war), then your speech is not protected."

Analysis Questions

Directions: Answer the writing questions and the two Multiple Choice questions.

1. According to Source 1, what kind of language could get you sent to prison for 20 years?

Sentence Starter: According to the Sedition Act, you could be imprisoned for using "disloyal" or "abusive" language about...

2. In Source 2, Justice Holmes compares Charles Schenck's anti-draft pamphlets to "shouting fire in a theater." Why does he make this comparison?

Sentence Starter: He makes this comparison to show that just like shouting "fire" causes panic, Schenck's pamphlets created a "danger" to the country by trying to stop...

Regents-Style Multiple Choice

3. The "Clear and Present Danger" ruling in Schenck v. United States (1919) confirmed the idea that:

(1) Constitutional rights are absolute and can never be taken away

(2) Constitutional rights may be limited during wartime to protect national security

(3) The President has the power to declare war without Congress

(4) Conscientious objectors cannot be drafted into the military

4. The Sedition Act of 1918 (Source 1) was most often used to punish which group of people?

(1) Factory owners who refused to pay taxes

(2) Soldiers who deserted the army

(3) Socialists, labor leaders, and pacifists who criticized the war

(4) Immigrants from Allied nations like Britain and France

Part 3: Exit Ticket (5 minutes)

Directions: Answer the following prompt in a complete paragraph (5-8 sentences).

Prompt: Using evidence from both sources, explain how World War I changed the rights of Americans. Why did the government pass the Sedition Act (Source 1), and how did the Supreme Court justify it in Schenck v. U.S. (Source 2)?

Sentence Starter: World War I changed American rights because the government decided that safety was more important than freedom. They passed the Sedition Act (Source 1) to punish anyone who used "abusive language" about... The Supreme Court supported this in the Schenck case. Justice Holmes (Source 2) argued that free speech can be limited if it creates a "Clear and... Danger." This meant that during war, citizens could not...