The 'clear and present danger' standard originated in which case?

The 'clear and present danger' standard originated in which case?

• A. Gitlow v. New York
• B. Schenck v. United States
• C. Texas v. Johnson
• D. Tinker v. Des Moines

Answer: (B)

Understanding when speech can be restricted under the First Amendment centers on the clear and present danger idea. This standard originated in Schenck v. United States (1919), where Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. explained that speech isn’t protected when it presents a clear and present danger of causing significant harm that the government has a right to prevent. The case involved anti-draft pamphlets during World War I, and the Court held that in wartime the government can restrict expressions likely to disrupt the war effort. The famous metaphor about shouting “fire” in a crowded theater is used to illustrate why certain speech can be limited when it poses a real risk of immediate harm. Over time, the standard evolved. Gitlow v. New York extended First Amendment protections to the states but used a different test (the dangerous tendency approach) to justify restricting speech. Later, Brandenburg v. Ohio refined the rule to focus on imminent lawless action. But the origin of the clear and present danger doctrine lies in Schenck v. United States.

Understanding when speech can be restricted under the First Amendment centers on the clear and present danger idea. This standard originated in Schenck v. United States (1919), where Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. explained that speech isn’t protected when it presents a clear and present danger of causing significant harm that the government has a right to prevent. The case involved anti-draft pamphlets during World War I, and the Court held that in wartime the government can restrict expressions likely to disrupt the war effort. The famous metaphor about shouting “fire” in a crowded theater is used to illustrate why certain speech can be limited when it poses a real risk of immediate harm.

Over time, the standard evolved. Gitlow v. New York extended First Amendment protections to the states but used a different test (the dangerous tendency approach) to justify restricting speech. Later, Brandenburg v. Ohio refined the rule to focus on imminent lawless action. But the origin of the clear and present danger doctrine lies in Schenck v. United States.