Case Study: Schenck V. United States

After September 11th, Americans looked to the government for protection and reassurance. However, they did not expect to find out thirteen years later that the government did this by using technology to spy on Americans, as well as other countries. George W. Bush began the policy shortly after the terrorist attack and Barack Obama continued it. There have been many confrontations over the years about the extent of the N.S.A.’s spying; however, the most recent whistle-blower, Edward Snowden, leaked information that caused much upset throughout America (EFF). It has also brought many people to question: is he a hero or a traitor?

Edward Snowden isn’t the only person who believes what the U.S. had done was wrong, but also many American leaders, and other nations around the world. The United States had not only been collecting data on their own citizens, but also of other countries leaders and citizens. The release of these documents had strained political relationships between the U.S. and other allied nations. The knowledge and truth other leaders and nations had gained

Edward Snowden. This is a name that will be in the history books for ages. He will be branded a traitor or a whistleblower depending on where you look. Many Americans feel that Edward Snowden is a traitor who sold the United States’ secrets aiming to harm the nation. Others believe that he was simply a citizen of the United States who exercised his right to expose the government for their unconstitutional actions. It is important to not only know the two sides to the argument of friend or foe, but to also know the facts as well. My goal in this paper is to present the facts without bias and to adequately portray the two sides of the argument.

Schenck was charged for his obstruction of recruitment due to the Conspiracy Act. He sued, saying that his First Amendment free speech was violated.

The Supreme Court's decision was the right decision because when determining something that involves the First Amendment issues, the Court must look at the circumstances surrounding the speech for the safety of the general. In peaceful times this wouldn't be a big thing and Schenck would have had full protection. However, Schenck caused harm including: fear, intimidation, insult, and emotional trauma to those who may have received his pamphlets whom most were the drafted military personnel. Since the United States was at war, the circumstances surrounding whether this was free speech or not changed Schenck had no right to integrate the military draftees (Alonso, Karen. Schenck v. United States: restrictions on free speech). The case was taken as if it was

This law prohibited any speech that interfered with the drafting of men into the armed forces. The media is forced to silence, due to the fear of any repercussions, from the government. Merely voicing an opinion in the media about any war is now so looked down upon that it takes away freedom from the media to reach all types of audiences.

During the First World War the United States instated a military draft. Schecnk mailed circulars, letters of advisement, to draftees, suggesting that the draft was a violation of their First Amendment rights. He proclaimed that the draft went against their Thirteenth Amendment rights- involuntary servitude and that war itself was motivated by capitalist greed. He was charged with violating the Espionage Act of 1917, which made it a crime to “obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service”. Schecnk argued that the Espionage Act violated the First Amendment right, Free Speech Clause, “Abridging

Schenck vs U.S was one case of 1919 in which protection through the freedom of speech clause was argued. Charles Schenck was caught mailing circulars to military members who had been drafted during World War 1, and expressing ideas to begin a petition to repeal the Conscription Act. Schenck v. United States(n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved November 10, 2017, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/249us47 claims “Schenck was charged with conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act by attempting to cause insubordination in the military and to obstruct recruitment.” The United States was unanimous in charging Schenck as guilty and claimed the first amendment was incapable of protecting him in such a situation. There were no dissenting justices in this case and the vote went 9-0.

3. The Facts of the Case: The Espionage Act was passed in 1917 as a result of the United States ' involvement in World War I. In the name of national security, the American government passed different statutes that restricted provisions of the First Amendment. During this time Congress also passed the War Revenue Act, which increased income taxes to help fund the war. The Selective Service Act of 1917 also made it mandatory for men ages 21 to 30 (18 to 45 by 1918) to enlist in the war. In response to these laws and regulations, Schenck, a member of the Executive Committee of the Socialist Party, mailed leaflets to draftees urging resistance of the draft. Schenck, however did not actually get in the way of the military draft, although Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes claims that he

The Supreme Court makes some of the most important decisions in the United States, which mostly have to do with changes to citizens civil rights or interpretation of certain laws or court cases. When referring to civil rights it usually means the first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States, which are known as the Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court has the authority to reinterpret these rights and define their limits. One such example of this is in the Supreme Court case Schenck v United States. The focus of this research paper will be to analyze the path Schenck v US took to reach the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court case, the Supreme Court’s verdict, and how the ruling affected the United States and the Public.

The limitations of first amendment protections are pretty clearly defined in a huge body of case law ranging from chief justice Holmes, “you can’t shout fire in a crowded theater” ruling in Schenk vs US in 1919 to the Snyder vs Phelps in 2015 , upholding the Westboro Baptist Church’s right to make homophobic statements in public.

Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency (N.S.A) subcontractor turned whistle-blower is nothing short of a hero. His controversial decision to release information detailing the highly illegal ‘data mining’ practices of the N.S.A have caused shockwaves throughout the world and have raised important questions concerning how much the government actually monitors its people without their consent or knowledge. Comparable to Mark Felt in the Watergate scandals, Daniel Ellsberg with the Pentagon Papers, Edward Snowden joins the rank of infamous whistleblowers who gave up their jobs, livelihood, and forever will live under scrutiny of the public all in the service to the American people. Edward Snowden released information detailing the

While working for the NSA, Snowden became aware of their extensive trespasses against the privacy of U.S. and international citizens alike. Upon considering the extent of these trespasses, Snowden felt that it was his moral duty, as he stated, “to inform the public as to that which is done in their name and that which is done against them”. His provided information showed the use of Internet surveillance programs, and the evaluation of phone records in the form of “metadata”. Many argue that Snowden’s leaking of information has hindered our government’s ability to intercept terrorist plots, by informing the world of the NSA’s capabilities, and therefore allowing terrorist groups to plot attacks beyond the reach of U.S. surveillance. In light of this, Snowden’s leak has indeed made us more vulnerable to terrorist attacks, but does this justify the NSA’s chosen use of power? Since Snowden’s revelations, it has become evident that the NSA consistently uses their surveillance abilities to unjustified ends. One function of the NSA’s electronic data analysis is to find targets for the military’s Joint Special Operations Command to strike with lethal drone attacks. Many innocent civilians in middle-eastern countries have lost their lives as a result of this military sect’s reliance on the NSA’s data, rather than human correspondence. According to an anonymous former drone-operator, the victims of these attacks “might have been terrorists, or they could have been

In early 2013 a man by the name of Edward Joseph Snowden began leaking classified National Security Agency (NSA) documents to media outlets, which in turn ended up in public ears. These documents, mainly involving intelligence Snowden acquired while working as an NSA contractor, are mostly related to global surveillance programs run by the NSA. This has raised multiple ethical issues ranging from national security, information privacy and the ethics behind whistleblowing in general. The reach and impact of these leaks have gone global and have put in question the very government that protects us as well as the extent of the public’s rights on privacy. Various foreign

“You can't have 100% security and then also have 100% privacy and zero inconvenience. Society had to make choices” said President Obama. It has become a given in society that it is on the government’s agenda to procure its nation’s safety in exchange of the privacy or freedom of the people. Edward Snowden, a paladin of social justice, has now come to light with outstanding facts as for what specifically it is that the National Security Agency (NSA) is able and willing to do for the country’s sake. Snowden, a 29-year-old NSA ex-employee, worked from Hawaii on his computer support for the recollection of data in bulk from the whole nation . Under the name of Verax, which means truth teller in Latin, he